Skip to main content

Full text of "Revenue laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Edited from a Greek papyrus in the Bodleian Library, with a translation, commentary, and appendices by B.P. Grenfell, and an introd."

See other formats















/_ ^^^^ 












THE Revenue Papyrus consists of two rolls, of which the 
first containing columns 1-72 was obtained by Prof. Flinders 
Petrie in the winter of 1893-4; tne second, containing the 
other columns and originally perhaps wrapped round the first 
roll, if not actually forming a part of it, was obtained by myself 
in the winter of 1894-5. 

The first roll measures 44 feet long; the second, of which 
only fragments exist, must at one time have measured not less 
than 1 5 feet. The height of the papyrus cannot, owing to its 
fragmentary condition, be precisely determined, but was in the 
case of columns 59-72 about 9^ inches, in that of the rest 
3^ inches more. The papyrus is thus by far the largest Greek 
papyrus known, and as it is in several places dated ' in the 
twenty-seventh year' of Philadelphus, or 259/8 B.C., it is also 
nearly the oldest. 

Both the external and the internal evidence point to its 
provenance having been the Fayoum, a remarkable fact, since 
the countless Greek papyri which have been found in that 
province have, with the exception of the Gurob papyri and 
a few others, all belonged to a much later date. 

The papyrus is written by a number of scribes, but to 


determine exactly how many is a difficult problem. I think 
that I can distinguish twelve, in addition to one or more cor- 
rectors. The choice of the columns to be reproduced in facsimile 
has been made with the view of exhibiting both the variety of 
the hand-writings and those columns of which the contents 
are most important. 

With regard to the text I have endeavoured to present 
as faithful a transcription of the original as is convenient to 
modern readers. I have therefore divided the words, and caused 
the initial letters of the proper names and the headings of 
sections written in large spaced letters to be printed in capitals. 
But in other respects the text is printed just as it is in the 
original. Blunders or mistakes in spelling are left uncorrected, 
criticism being reserved for the commentary ; and I have not 
thought it worth while to disfigure the pages by the constant 
insertion of sic. Any blunder in the text which is liable to 
misconception is explained in the Commentary, as are the few 
abbreviations and symbols which occur. Nor have I inserted 
stops, breathings or accents, which, in publishing a papyrus of 
such antiquity, seem to me a needless anachronism. There 
is the less reason for inserting them in the present case, since 
in places which are ambiguous the reader can refer to the 
translation, where he will find the construction which I propose. 
The division-marks in the original between lines mark the 
beginning of new sections, and where a new section begins in 
the middle of a line, as occasionally happens, the division-mark 
is between that line and the one following. 

Square brackets [ ] indicate that there is a lacuna in the 
papyrus, and the number of dots enclosed by the brackets 
signifies the approximate number of letters lost, judging by 
the analogy of the average number of letters which occupy the 


same space in the preceding and following lines. Of course 
certainty must decrease in proportion to the length of the 
lacuna, and where the ends of lines are lost, a guess more or 
less probable, as it is based on the ends of lines preserved 
above or below, or merely on general considerations from the 
requirements of the sense or the average length of lines in the 
column is all that is possible. Moreover letters, of course, 
vary considerably in size, e. g. there is hardly any scribe in 
the papyrus who does not occupy as much space with a T as 
with CHS. Nevertheless, in those cases where I have supposed 
the lacuna to be not greater than six or seven letters, not 
being the end of a line, I am ready to deny the admissibility 
of emendations which are clearly inconsistent with the average 
number of letters of normal size being what I have suggested. 
I have ventured to insist somewhat strongly on this point, 
partly because a number of emendations can. very easily be 
made by ignoring the dots, and partly because when a column 
is broken in two, or when fragments are detached from the 
rest of a column, as e. g. frequently happens in the first twenty- 
three columns, it may at first sight seem impossible to fix the 
number of letters lost with even the approximate certainty 
which is all that I wish to claim. But in most cases this is 
not so. When a column is broken in half, the holes and breaks 
which occur at regular intervals in the folds of the papyrus 
enable us to calculate to T V inch, if necessary, the position of 
the two halves, while as the detached fragments for the most 
part fell away from the rest in lumps containing several thick- 
nesses, the determination of any one of these layers is there- 
fore sufficient to fix precisely the position of all the others 
in the same series. That the position of every fragment is 
certain I do not wish to maintain, but I would ask my readers 

viii PREFACE. 

to believe that both Prof. Petrie and I have spent much 
time in fixing the places of the fragments, that the positions 
depend for the most part on careful measurements, and that 
where there was neither external nor internal evidence sufficient 
to fix the position of a fragment with a near approach to 
certainty, the doubt has been recorded in the notes, or no 
attempt has been made to decide the exact relation of the 
separate parts. Thus in columns 79-107, I have left undeter- 
mined the amount lost between the two halves into which 
nearly every column is divided, although the approximate 
position of nearly all the fragments making up those columns 
is certain. 

Dots outside square brackets indicate letters which, either 
through the dark colour of the papyrus or through the oblitera- 
tion of the writing, we have been unable to decipher. 

Dots underneath letters signify that the reading of the 
letters is doubtful, in nearly all cases owing to the mutilation 
of the papyrus. But where a letter is for the most part broken 
away, and yet the context makes it certain what the letter was, 
wishing not to create apparent difficulties where none really 
exist, I have generally printed the mutilated letter either 
without a dot or inside the square bracket, and have reserved 
the dots underneath letters for cases where there is a real 

Round brackets ( ) represent similar brackets in the original, 
which mean that the part enclosed was to be omitted. Angular 
brackets < > mean that the letters enclosed have been erased 
in the papyrus. Corrections in the original are reproduced 
as faithfully as possible, the smaller type implying that the 
correction was made not by the scribe himself, but by another 
writer. This distinction is of considerable importance, espe- 


cially in columns 38-56, where the reader will easily be able to 
differentiate mere corrections of blunders by the scribes them- 
selves from the changes introduced by the Siopflajnfc. 

The excellence of the facsimiles can hardly perhaps be 
appreciated to the full by any one who has not the original 
before him, and therefore cannot realize the difficulties with 
which the photographers of the Clarendon Press have had 
to contend. Most of the papyrus is written in large clear 
hands which are easy to read, and of which the facsimile is 
almost, or even quite, as clear as the original. But the papyrus 
is in many parts stained a very dark brown, sometimes almost 
black, and in many parts the surface of it has scaled off; and 
these parts, although by holding the papyrus in different lights 
they are generally decipherable with certainty, must of necessity 
be less clear in the facsimile than in the original. Nevertheless 
that the facsimiles are, on the whole, extremely successful will, 
I am sure, be admitted. 

As has been implied in the foregoing remarks, there are not 
many passages where there is much doubt about the reading of 
the papyrus, when the writing is there. There are, however, 
a few passages, which have resisted our combined efforts, but of 
which the correct reading can be verified as soon as it is sug- 
gested. On the other hand, the great difficulty throughout has 
been to fill up the lacunae. Here it will not be out of place to 
explain the principles on which I have adopted or rejected 
conjectural readings. In printing a reconstructed text of a 
papyrus so mutilated as the present one, two courses were 
possible. One would have been to carry conjectural emenda- 
tions to the furthest point, and to have stated the precise 
grounds on which each one was made. The other course was 
to draw a sharp distinction between conjectures which were 



based on parallel passages in the papyrus itself or elsewhere, 
and conjectures which, though often probable enough in them- 
selves, were not so based, and while admitting the first class into 
the text, to reserve the second for the Commentary. It is the 
latter course, not the first, which I have adopted. And if it be 
a matter of regret to some that in so many places gaps have 
been left, which could with more or less probability have been 
easily filled up, the answer is this, that the place of many frag- 
ments was not found until after our text had almost reached its 
present condition, and that we have therefore been able to some 
extent to test the value of our conjectures. The result showed 
that where our conjectures had been based on a parallel passage 
in the papyrus itself, they were nearly always right, and where 
they had been based on a parallel passage in another papyrus, 
they were generally right, but that where they were based on 
the grounds of a priori probability, they were generally wrong. 
I have therefore not admitted into the text any conjectures 
which are not based on a parallel passage either in the papyrus 
itself or in papyri of the same period and dealing with the same 
subjects, except in cases where the conjecture was so obviously 
right that it required no confirmation, and in a few other cases, 
where some a priori conjecture was necessary in order to attach 
any meaning to the passage. Where a conjecture is based on 
a parallel passage in the papyrus itself, from considerations of 
space I have not as a rule stated the grounds in the Commentary, 
unless there was some difficulty, as the reader who wishes to 
verify the conjecture can do so by referring to the Index. But 
where a conjecture is based on a parallel passage in another 
papyrus, or where it is only based on a priori grounds, the fact 
is recorded in the Commentary, in which will also be found 
a number of conjectures not admitted into the text. In addition, 


more or less obvious conjectures, which for various reasons will 
not suit, are occasionally recorded. 

A word of explanation is necessary with regard to the mount- 
ing of the papyrus, and especially of these columns which are 
facsimiled. The unrolling and mounting of the first roll was 
undertaken by Prof. Petrie himself, and the skill which he has 
shown in mounting so mutilated a papyrus of which the texture 
is excessively fine and brittle, is beyond all praise. It was clearly 
impossible for him to accurately fix the position of fragments 
which became loose as soon as the papyrus was opened, and he 
rightly preferred to paste the fragments down in places which 
were approximately correct, than to run the risk of their being 
lost before their precise position could be fixed. The result of 
this was that, especially in the earlier and most mutilated part, 
a number of pieces were more or less misplaced, though the 
correct position of all but a very few has now been determined, 
and in many cases marked in pencil on the papyrus. Without 
claiming any infallibility, I would therefore ask my readers when 
they notice, as they frequently will, apparent inconsistencies 
both in readings and in spacings between the printed text and 
the original, to believe that the arrangement or reading in the 
text has not been adopted without good reason. In one or two 
places I noticed, on reading through the papyrus since my return 
to England, that a few letters had disappeared, but fortunately 
the loss was of practically no consequence. 

My last and most pleasant duty is to express my sincerest 
thanks to the many friends who have aided me in the present 
work, and particularly to those distinguished specialists in the 
history and palaeography of this period, with whom the interest 
in a common study has made me privileged to become ac- 



The debt which lovers of antiquity owe to Prof. FLINDERS 
PETRIE for the recovery and preservation of the first roll, which 
alone gives to the scanty fragments of the second what value 
they possess, has already been stated. But it is my duty in 
particular to thank him for placing the work of publication in 
my hands, and for his frequent help in the difficult matter of 
arranging the detached fragments in their correct places. 

With Prof. MAHAFFY I have discussed on frequent occasions 
all the problems both of reading and interpretation. We have 
read the original together, and the Translation and Commentary 
have been completely revised by him. Many both of the 
readings in the text and of the explanations are his, and what- 
ever merits this book may possess are in the main due to the 
fact that I have had the constant help and criticism of a scholar 
whose knowledge of both the history and the papyri of this 
period is equalled by his brilliancy in overcoming difficulties. 
On nearly all points we are agreed, but as there are a few on 
which I have ventured to differ from him, the responsibility for 
error lies only with the writer of each section. 

Prof. G. LUMBROSO I visited at Rome in September 1894, 
when our edition had not nearly reached even its present 
degree of completeness, and he most kindly consented to go 
through the whole text with me, and to him I owe a large 
number of most valuable criticisms and suggestions. 

Recently in August 1895, in our final consultation over the 
text we have had the great benefit of Prof. U. WILCKEN'S 
aid. Several of the remaining difficulties were solved by 
him, and he has also made many admirable suggestions and 
criticisms. Besides these I have specially to thank him for 
most generously placing at my disposal the materials of his 
two forthcoming great works, the Corpus of Greek ostraca 

PREFACE. xiii 

and the Corpus of Ptolemaic papyri. These have proved of 
inestimable service in several places, especially in reaching 
that solution of the coinage questions which I have proposed 
in Appendix III. 

Professor E. P. WRIGHT of Dublin has given me valuable 
help on special points connected with botany, and Prof. P. 
GARDNER has aided me on special points of numismatics. 
Though he is not in the least responsible for any errors in 
Appendix III, without his aid I should not have ventured 
with a boldness of which I am fully conscious an excursion 
into the difficult and technical field of Ptolemaic numismatics. 

My friend and partner in the Craven Fellowship, Mr. A. 
S. HUNT, has lightened for me considerably the burden of 
revising the proofs, and while doing so has made several good 

The typography of the Clarendon Press requires no com- 
mendation ; but I cannot conclude without expressing my 
thanks to the Delegates for publishing this book, and to the 
Controller and staff of that institution for the care which they 
have spent both in preparing the facsimiles and in printing 
a text so difficult as the present. 

Finally, some consideration will, I hope, be shown for the 
shortcomings of this volume on account of the speed with which 
it has been produced. Neither Prof. Mahaffy nor I saw the 
papyrus until June 1894, and the work of publication had to 
be suspended from November i894~April 1895 owing to my 
enforced absence in Egypt, a delay which however has amply 
justified itself by the recovery during the winter of the second 
roll. It is possible that a longer period of deliberation would 
have resulted in fewer difficulties in the text and greater com- 
pleteness in the explanations. But I have not wished to violate 


the traditional example which this country has set to the rest of 
Europe, of placing its latest discoveries before the world with 
the utmost possible despatch. 

Meanwhile, in the words of one of my predecessors in 
this field of research, ludicent doctiores, et si quid probabilius 
habuerint, profcrant. 


October 5, 1895. 








I. Louvre papyrus 62. Text and Commentary . . . 177 

II. Some unpublished Petrie Papyri -187 

III. The Silver and Copper Coinage of the Ptolemies . . 193 


I. Index of proper names and place names .. . .241 

II. Index of symbols and abbreviations 242 

III. General Index . . . . . . . . .242 



SINCE the discovery of the collection now known as Mr. 
Petrie's papyri, of which the mummy cases of the Gurob cemetery 
were mainly composed, no greater surprise has come upon the 
students of Ptolemaic Egyptology than the acquisition, by the 
same discoverer, of another great document belonging to the 
third century B.C. In the year 1894 Mr. Petrie bought from 
a dealer in Cairo a roll which is actually 44 feet long. There was 
no clear evidence to be had concerning its provenance, but the 
probability that it came from the Fayoum was raised to certainty 
by Mr. Grenfell in 1895, since he acquired, not only at Cairo, 
but in the Fayoum, further very important fragments so similar 
in texture, handwriting, and subject, as to make it clear that they 
belonged to the same roll or set of rolls. Most unfortunately, 
Mr. Petrie's great roll had been broken near the top, probably 
by a stroke of the spade, at the moment of its discovery, from 
some fellah digging for sebach or for antiquities, and moreover 
the whole roll was in the most delicate and brittle condition. It 
could not be opened with safety without pasting down each 
fragment as it was detached from the rest, and all the skill and 
patience of Mr. Petrie were required to carry out so tedious au 


operation. Even after this was done, many replacements and 
rearrangements were necessary, which could only be made by 
Mr. Grenfell after he had become perfectly intimate with the 
subject and style of the document. To him is due the first 
transcription of the document ; since that time we have con- 
stantly discussed the difficulties, re-examined the original on 
every doubtful passage, and solved many of the problems which 
at first resisted his efforts. In September, 1894, Mr. Grenfell 
went to Rome, and consulted Prof. G. Lumbroso on several un- 
settled points. In our final conference over remaining difficulties, 
we have had the advantage of the advice, the corroboration, and 
in a few passages the corrections of Prof. Wilcken, who spent 
a week with us (August, 1895) m Oxford, and examined with us 
these passages with constant reference to the original, which is 
now one of the treasures of the Bodleian Library. We have 
thus had the advantage of the criticism of the two foremost 
specialists on Ptolemaic papyri in Europe. 

As regards the present state of the text, it will readily be 
understood that nothing could save for us the outer parts of 
the roll, which had been exposed to wear and handling. The 
middle part of all the earlier columns was gone. It was only 
as the interior was reached that we found any large proportion 
of the writing preserved. 

Fortunately the whole document was written on the recto 
side of the papyrus, with the exception of two short notes added 
by a corrector and specially referred to by the curious direction 
EZH OP A, look outside, at the point of the text (cols. 41, 43) 
to which each of them belongs. It was accordingly necessary to 
set up these columns only between panes of glass ; the rest has 
been laid upon sheets of paper and framed. The roll as 
originally opened contained 72 columns of text, but the frag- 


ments since acquired, which apparently belong to a sister roll 
wrapped round it, bring up the total number of columns, accord- 
ing to Mr. Grenfell's estimate, to 107, with some undetermined 
fragments. I must refer the reader to his translation and 
commentary for the details which justify our general conclu- 
sions, and for a discussion of the many particular problems raised 
by this great new document. The only text which evidently 
bears a close analogy to it is the well-known Papyrus 62 
of the Louvre collection ! . This, as it both illustrates and is 
illustrated by the present documents, has been re-examined in 
Paris, collated, and printed by Mr. Grenfell in a more accurate 
form in this volume. He has also added some unpublished 
fragments of the Petrie papyri on cognate subjects. 


The dates extant in the document are not only of the 
greatest importance in fixing its precise age, but also because 
they suggest some important rectifications of the hitherto ac- 
cepted facts of Ptolemaic history, and of the theories adopted 
to explain them. It was plain at first sight, to any reader of the 
Petrie papyri, that the various hands in the new document were 
all of the third century B.C. The occurrence of the year 27 in 
several places made it further certain that it must have been 
issued during the reign of the first or the second Ptolemy, for 
of the succeeding kings, no successor till the sixth (known as 
Ptolemy VII, Philometor) attained to so many years' sovranty. 
The opening formula (cf. Plate I) might very well have 
misled us into attributing the ordinance to the first Ptolemy ; 
for although such a formula as it now represents has never yet 
occurred, it could hardly, taken as it stands, signify any one else. 

1 Cf. Les pap. grecs du Musee du Louvre, Paris, 1 866. 
C 2 


Nevertheless we were not for a moment misled by this snare. 
The second date (col. 24), which is also reproduced in our first 
plate, though very much mutilated, was clearly parallel to 
that occurring once in the Petrie papyri, and found also in 
demotic contracts ; it was a formula used by the second 
Ptolemy, after he had associated his son (afterwards Euergetes I) 
in the royalty. I need not now refer to the fanciful theory of 
Revillout, which is wholly inconsistent with this, but which 
has now been so completely refuted that he himself has probably 
abandoned it. So far then we find ourselves on firm ground, 
and the date on cols. 24 and 38 is equivalent to 259-8 B.C., the 
twenty-seventh year of Ptolemy usually called Philadelphus l . 

But why does the first column contain a new and strange 
formula ? The Petrie papyri show us in the king's later years 
(33. 3 6 ) a well-known title: BACIAEYONTOC HTOAEMAIOY 
TOY HTOAEMAIOY CHTHPOC, and this I attempted to find 
here, by assuming that the second HTOAEMAIOY had been 
lost between the scraps containing TOY and CHTHPOC. To 
this solution Mr. Grenfell was from the first opposed, as he 
urged that the two scraps fitted perfectly together. But I was 
not satisfied till Mr. Grenfell, arguing that the word CHTHPOC 
had been thrust in at the end of a full line, and that even so 

1 As is now well known, we have no evidence that he was so called during his 
life, though his wife was. The king and queen jointly are called 0EOI A A E A (f> O I . 
Strangely enough, we have as yet found no epithet, such as Soter, by which he 
was recognized, till at least a century later, when he is distinguished by historians, 
&c. for convenience sake, by his wife's title. Thus in Manetho's letter dedicating 
the history to the second Ptolemy, of which Syncellus quotes the opening fiacr. 
IlroA. 4>iAa8eA$&> o-e/3aor<j> K.r.X. Ippcoo-o /uoi /Sao-. ^tArare, it was long since 
observed that o-e/3aora> was an evidence of spuriousness. We now know that 
<I>iAaSeA.(/>u> is so also, and lastly that eppoxro would be an unpardonable piece of 
rudeness, Manetho being bound to say 


there was no room therein for another HTOAEMAIOY, hit upon 
the true solution. He suggested that the erasures immediately 
under the first line, as well as the crowded and smaller characters 
of the word CHTHPOC, pointed to a correction of the date. 
Even so, the corrector must have blundered, for he should 
have left HTOAEMAIOY in the second line, and there added 
CHTHPOC. But on re-examining the original according to this 
theory, I found the remains of the old formula still faintly 
visible in the second line, and this was corroborated by Mr. 
Grenfell and Professor Wilcken. What happened was then 
briefly this. The corrector desired to replace the older formula 
by the later ; but he erased too much, and then added his new 
word in the wrong place. Though the document was officially 
corrected, as is stated twice over, the corrector was fortunately 
guilty of the further negligence of leaving the old formula un- 
disturbed on col. 24, thus enabling us to solve the difficulty. 

There remains the highly interesting question : why should 
the second Ptolemy have not only changed the formula of his 
dates in his twenty-seventh year, but also have removed the 
name of his son, the crown prince, now of age and the accepted 
heir, to substitute for it the title of his deified father ? Demotic 
scholars and numismatists are ready with an answer on the last 
point. They maintain that the first Ptolemy was not formally 
deified till long after his death. It is shown on apparently 
good evidence by Revillout and Poole that this deification 
took place in the twenty-fifth year of the reign *. Even then the 
gods Soteres were not introduced into the list of deified kings, 
beginning with Alexander, whose priest was eponymous magis- 
trate at Alexandria. But as the cities of Phoenicia began to 
coin widi the legend FTTOAEMAIOY CftTHPOC at this time, it 
1 Cf. Coins of the Ptolemies, p. xxxv. 


is but reasonable to expect that the king would also now style 
himself Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy Soter. 

So far the change is explicable, but how can we account for 
the extrusion of his son, now for some years appearing in the 
royal formula ? For this Krall and Wilcken, with others, have 
adopted the hypothesis of an unknown son of Queen Arsinoe II, 
born after her marriage with this Ptolemy, and associated by 
her influence in the royalty, to the exclusion of the elder crown 
prince, her stepson 1 . This supposed youth is further assumed 
to have died when he was nearly grown up, and so to have 
given occasion for a change of the formula. This complicated 
series of assumptions, which has been consistently opposed by 
Wiedemann, is highly improbable in itself, and contradicted by 
good evidence. In the first place it were passing strange that all 
our historical authorities should keep silence on such a matter. 
The crimes of Arsinoe in her earlier life are well known, and 
had she indeed compelled Philadelphus to oust his elder children 
for a new heir, not only would she have murdered them if she 
could, but we should certainly have heard of this family feud. 
The very well informed scholiast on Theocritus' i yth Idyll (1. 128) 
even states directly the contrary. He says that Arsinoe being 
childless drewcs, her elder children had been murdered, and 
she had none by Philadelphus adopted her step-children, and 
more especially Euergetes, who is called in all the formulae of 
his own dates, the son of Ptolemy and [of this] Arsinoe, 6EHN 
AAEA<J>ftN. This then is the young prince who appears with 
his parents on the steles of Pithom and of Mendes 2 , nor is 

1 Krall, Sitzungsber. of Vienna Acad. for 1884, pp. 362 sqq. ; Wilcken, art. 
ARSINOE in Paully-Wissowa's Encyclop. ii. p. 1286; Ehrlich, De Callim, Hymnis 
Quaest, Chronol. (Breslau, 1894), p. 56. 

2 Wilcken was the first to call attention to these representations, as well as to 


there any positive evidence for the conjecture of Wilcken, that 
this figure points to the newly assumed son of Arsinoe II. The 
lady must have been forty years old when she became Queen of 
Egypt, so that a new child would have been remarkable, and 
would from this very circumstance have excited unusual notice. 
His assumption into the succession would moreover not have 
been delayed till the king's nineteenth year, from which Revil- 
lout has found the first mention of an associated prince, and 
from this time on we have mention of him in years 21,22, and 24, 
not to speak of the present case in 27. These facts lead us to 
infer that though recognized as prince royal in earlier Egyptian 
documents, such as the steles to which Wilcken has first called 
attention, Euergetes was not formally associated in the sovranty 
till he had reached the age of puberty, when Arsinoe, his step- 
mother, was growing old, and the king's health was failing. 

The question, however, remains more strange, more pressing 
than ever why was the crown prince's name removed from the 
formula starting from the year 27 (B.C. 259-8) of his father's 
reign ? After much perplexity, I have found what seems to me 
the true answer to this question. 

We know that the prince had been already betrothed to the 
infant daughter of King Magas of Cyrene, who died, according 
to the most probable computation of his fifty years' reign, at 
this very time. The queen-mother of Cyrene, Apama, who 
was opposed to the match, promptly sent for Demetrius 
the Fair, who hurried at once to Occupy Cyrene. The whole 
narrative in Justin, our only and wretched authority, points to 

one at Philae (Lepsius, Denkm&lcr, iv. 6 a), where Isis is represented suckling the 
young prince. He infers from the youth of this figure that it must be an infant 
son of Arsinoe II. But as the date of the relief is not given, it may have been set 
up just after her adoption of the future Euergetes, and while he was but a child. 


a most rapid course of events l . But Demetrius commenced an 
intrigue with Apama, instead of waiting for the time when he 
could marry her heiress-daughter, Berenike, and was put to death 
with the knowledge, though not at the instigation of the child- 
princess. Thereupon, by common consent, Euergetes is called to 
Cyrene, and the marriage with Berenike follows, possibly as soon 
as the princess was of age, but in any case some years later. 
It has sometimes been assumed, perhaps on the suggestion of 
a blunder in Porphyry's fragment, which confuses this Demetrius 
with Demetrius II, King of Macedonia, that the usurpation of 
the intruder at Cyrene lasted for some years 2 . There is no 
evidence for this. Nay, the words of Justin imply that the 
whole affair only occupied a few months. If so, and if Euergetes 
was called by the people of Cyrene to assume the government 
as prince consort expectant, he doubtless assumed a title there 
inconsistent with his associated rank in Egypt. The Cyrenaeans 
would have been offended that the second in command of 
Egypt should assume their sovranty ; in any case it would have 
been a direct absorption of the royalty of Cyrene into the 

1 Justin xxvi. in ' Per idem tempus rex Cyrenarum Magas decedit, qui ante 
infirmitatem Beronicem, unicam filiam, ad finienda cum Ptolomeo fratre certamina 
filio eius desponderat. Sed post mortem regis mater virginis Arsinoe [of course 
Apama], ut invita se contractum matrimonium solveretur, misit qui ad nuptias 
virginis regnumque Cyrenarum Demetrium, fratrem regis Antigoni, a Macedonia 
arcesserent, qui et ipse ex filia Ptolomei [Soteris] procreatus est. Sed nee 
Demetrius moram fecit. Itaque quum secundante vento celeriter Cyrenas advo- 
lasset; fiducia pulchritudinis, qua riimis placere socrui coeperat, statim a principio 
superbus regiae familiae militibusque impotens erat, studiumque placendi a virgine 
in matrem contulerat. Quae res suspecta primo virgini, dein popularibus militi- 
busque invisa fuit. Itaque versis omnium animis in Ptolomei filium insidiae 
Demetrio comparantur, cui, cum in lectum socrus concessisset, percussores 

2 Porph. Fr. 4, 9 in Muller, FHG iii. p. 701. 


crown of Egypt, whereas the dynastic rights of the popular 
Berenike were to be preserved, so far as possible, intact 1 . More- 
over, Euergetes must have been obliged to hurry to Cyrene, 
and to remain there in charge of the disturbed and doubtful 
throne. It was, I believe, against the habit of these associations 
in the sovranty that the associated prince should be sent to 
govern a distant province or dependency. Though the old 
Pharaohs had called their eldest sons ' prince of Kush,' I cannot 
find an instance where the associated crown prince of Egypt was 
called prince of Cyrene, of Cyprus, or of Palestine. 

My reply then to the question for which an answer is im- 
peratively demanded, is simply this : In the year 27, or perhaps 
28, of Philadelphus' reign, his son, the crown prince, was called 
to an independent control, probably with the title of king, by 
the people of Cyrene ; owing to which his title as associated 
prince of Egypt was abandoned, being probably contrary to 
court etiquette, as it certainly would be to the susceptibilities of 
the Cyrenaeans 2 . 

1 Thus in the inscription of Adule, in which Euergetes enumerates all the 
provinces of the empire which he inherited from his father, Cyrene is (no doubt 
studiously) omitted. 

* Strange to say, there is another consideration, overlooked hitherto, which helps 
to remove the difficulty occasioned by the delay in Euergetes' marriage till he 
became King of Egypt. In most other monarchies a suitable bride is found for 
the crown prince as soon as he is of age ; in Ptolemaic Egypt I have observed 
with surprise that this is against the practice of the court, though the reigning 
Ptolemies marry as early as possible. Philadelphus, though grown up in 290 B.C., 
does not apparently marry till his. assumption of royalty, in the opinion of some 
critics, not till his father is dead. Euergetes, though long grown up, seems to have 
no wife till his accession. Philopator, succeeding at about the age of twenty-four, 
has no wife till some years later. We hear of no wife of Euergetes II till he 
succeeds in middle life and marries the widowed queen. So it is (with one 
exception) down to the case of Caesarion, who would doubtless have been 
married before his early death, but for this curious court tradition. A satisfactory 



A few words will suffice concerning the other dates occurring 
in the papyrus, and appended to those earlier documents, which 
are cited as standing orders. The royal rescript ordering the 
transmutation of the EKTH from a privilege of the temples into 
a gift to the queen is dated in the twenty-third year of the reign. 
In order to discover the average yearly value, the tax produced 

explanation of it I have not yet found. But the following suggestion is worth 
making upon this new problem. Among the later Ptolemies we hear of a daughter 
succeeding, because she was the only legitimate one (fj povrj yvrjvia ol rS>v nal8cai> fa, 
Paus. i. 9, 2), whereas there were younger children of the same parents who 
must have been equally entitled ^o succeed but for their age. I have often 
puzzled over this statement. It now seems to me intended to point out that 
the child in question was the eldest born after her father had succeeded to 
the throne, and that previous children born of the same mother were regarded 
as vodoi when the question of the succession arose. In the corresponding 
passage of Strabo (xvii. i, n) it is even stated S>v pia yvqvia f) irpfa&vTarr), K.T.A., 
which, I think, should certainly be emended to 17 ov irpea-^vrdTTj, ' who, though not 
the eldest, was the only legitimate heiress.' The text as it stands seems to me 
to have no point whatever. If this be so, there were obvious reasons why a crown 
prince should not marry. All the children begotten before his accession would be 
technically illegitimate, as not being the offspring of an actual king and queen, 
and the danger of having such elder children about the court was, of course, 
very great. Perhaps this explains the (false) declaration of the court poets 
that Philadelphus was marked out for sovranty while still in his mother's womb. 
Thus, too, we might find some reason for the apparently tyrannous act of 
Cleopatra III, widow of Euergetes II, who, when she was compelled by the 
Alexandrians to associate her eldest son (Lathyrus or Soter II) in the throne, 
compelled him to divorce his wife and sister Cleopatra, who had already borne 
him two children, and marry her younger daughter, Selene. These two children 
disappear from history, as if they had no right to the throne, unless, indeed, 
Auletes was one of them, and he is always spoken of as illegitimate. Without 
the aid of some hypothesis of this kind we cannot understand the monstrous and 
absurd facts retailed for us out of all logical connexion by the remaining histories 
of the Ptolemies. It is not improbable that Ptolemy Apion, who ruled for many 
years undisputedly over Cyrene, was an elder son of Euergetes II, borne to him 
by a Cyrenaic or Egyptian princess during his sovranty there, and whom he left 
behind in control, when he became King of Egypt in 146 B.C. 


in the previous years (cols. 36, 37) is to be ascertained. We 
know from independent sources that the deification of Arsinoe 
Philadelphus was gradual ; that she attained divine honours first 
at one, then at another of the Egyptian temples. The establish- 
ment of a canephoros or eponymous priestess in her honour, at 
Alexandria, which dates as far back as the year 19 of the reign, 
according to demotic documents, appeared to be the climax or 
consummation of this gradual apotheosis. We now know that, 
practically at least, the process was not complete till the king's 
twenty-third year, when she absorbed one of the great revenues 
of all the Egyptian gods. 


Having determined the date we approach the contents of 
the text. What is the subject ? Clearly the taxing of the 
country. We know from many literary sources that the land of 
Egypt was in a great measure regarded (even in old Pharaonic 
days) as the personal property of the sovran 1 , and that in no 
kingdom of the Hellenistic epoch was the Exchequer more 
carefully attended to, or the income of the king so great. The 
Ptolemies always appear in the history of those days as com- 
manding enormous wealth. Even queens and princesses have 
such fortunes that they can raise armies, and carry on wars 
on their own account. There can only have been two sources 
of such wealth commerce and agriculture. For it does not 
appear that the gold mines of Nubia afforded any considerable 
portion of the royal revenue ; had such been the case, we should 
have found a much wider use of gold coinage than existed in 
Ptolemaic Egypt. The largest item in the exchequer was 
doubtless the revenue derived, not only from the taxing of 
1 Cf. the account of the matter in Genesis xlviii. 18-26. 

d 2 Correct vc-. W xUii. IV2 fr 


produce, but from its regulation. The Petrie papyri have 
already made us acquainted with a variety of imposts, such 
as salt-tax, police-tax, grazing-tax, and even occasional benevo- 
lences called crowns (the Roman aurum coronarium) presented 
to the king as a gift, but a gift extracted from the population 
by compulsion. 

The present ordinance (putting aside the most mutilated 
columns and the fragments recently acquired by Mr. Grenfell) 
is concerned with only two of these sources of revenue, 
but we may well believe that they were two of the most 
important : the first is the tax upon vineyards and orchards ; 
the second that upon oil, or rather the revenue from the mono- 
poly exercised in the case of that indispensable article of 
Egyptian diet. As the revenues both from; wine jand from xail 
were farmed out to middlemen, the present Revenue Papyrus 
is concerned exclusively with the regulation of these contracts 
with the State. In both cases it Js very likely that the 
Ptolemies merely adopted and regulated the practice of the 
Pharaohs ; nay, in the former, they only extended a policy long 
since adopted by these kings l . There had been a time when 
the ' Established Church ' was so dominant as to secure 
enormous estates and revenues from the Crown. The inventory 
of the property of the temples of Amon in the Harris papyrus '\ 
and the fact that the twentieth dynasty was one of sacerdotal 
kings, whose first interest was the exaltation of priestly influence, 
show us plainly enough that the Egyptian corporations of priests, 

1 On this point I feel some hesitation, as the regulations concerning oil 
(col. 49) seem to imply that the monopoly was an innovation at this very 
time. Otherwise there could hardly have been private oil-presses recognized 
as existing, without being contraband. 

2 Cf. A. Erman's Aegyplen, p. 405 sqq. 


like the mediaeval Church in Europe, had gradually absorbed 
a great part of the property of the State. But the reaction had 
set in long before the Ptolemies supervened. Successful soldiers 
who became kings had begun to strip the temples gradually of 
their estates, and there is not wanting direct evidence of the 
remonstrances and complaints of the sacerdotal corporations. 
Every successful usurper began by restoring lost revenues to 
the priests in order to purchase their powerful support ; every 
established dynasty proceeded to exhibit its security by in- 
vading the privileges of this order. Thus we know that the first 
Ptolemy admitted the claims of the priests to large revenues in 
the Delta, near the Sebennytic mouth of the river revenues, 
too, which they claimed as the gift of a previous usurper 1 . The 
present papyrus contains a step in the contrary direction ; for we 
know from it that in the twenty-third year of the second Ptolemy 
the share of one-sixth of the produce of all the vineyards and 
orchards in Egypt, hitherto given to the gods of Egypt, and 
apparently delivered by the husbandmen at the nearest temple, 
was claimed by the queen, in consequence of her deification. 
The stele of Pithom and that of Mendes commemorate, it is 
true, vast gifts of money from this king and queen to the priests. 
Very probably this may have been regarded as a sort of com- 
pensation ; but the change of the ecclesiastical property from 
revenues or charges on the land of the country into a yearly 
grant or syntaxis from the Crown must have been felt as a loss 
of dignity, and probably of wealth. For whenever the Crown 
fell into pecuniary difficulties, the syntaxis could be diminished 
or refused 2 . It is very likely that the national insurrections, so 

1 Cf. the text translated in my. Greek Life and Thought, &c., p. 176 sq. 

2 Thus the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland received for their College at 
Maynooth a yearly syniaxis of over 26,000 from the British Government up to 


frequent under the later Ptolemies, were aided by priestly dis- 
content at this subordination of their wealth to the Crown. 
The very command to furnish an inventory of sacred property, 
such as the king here issues (col. 37. 15-7), must have appeared 
a gross insult to these proud conservative corporations. 

Such however being the case, we may be certain that the 
bulk of the duties to the local temples were .paid not in money, 
but in kind, and this ancient and once universal form of tax 
makes the institution of tax-farmers, under a centralized 
government, almost a necessity. And the State, in contracting 
with private individuals or with joint stock companies, allows 
them a certain profit for the cost and trouble of collecting such 
taxes, and is content to take from them a fixed income. This 
income in the instance before us was not indeed fixed for 
more than one or two years, but in every recurring case it was 
settled by gublic. auction, the State selling the right of collection 
and sale of the produce paid as tax, or even of money taxes, to 
the highest bidder. It is easy to see that many precautions 
were necessary to secure the State against loss. Then 
as now, dishonesty towards State charges, especially if they 
be felt oppressive or unjust, is regarded as hardly an offence 
against morality, or at most as a very venial offence, and so 
a very careful householder, such as the Egyptian sovran, had 
need to protect himself. The most obvious policy was to 
play off each of the parties concerned against the rest. There 
were three separate interests to afford scope for this diplomacy. 

the year 1870, but they were quite content to take fourteen years' purchase of it 
then in a lump sum, which brought them in only half the yearly amount, in order 
to attain security in their endowment, and an escape from inquiries in Parliament 
and by Royal Commissions: they also feel just as much at liberty to abet the 
national aspirations against the Crown as the Egyptian priesthood did. 


First come, naturally, the Government officials in each district, 
who must not be allowed to have any private pecuniary interests 
to conflict with their loyalty to the king. Secondly come the 
contractors who undertake the collection of taxes. They 
must be rich men, at least men who can find good security to 
guarantee the State against loss, and such men must on the one 
hand be induced to come forward by allowing them considerable 
profits, and hence promoting competition for the contract, 
whilst on the other they must not be allowed to damage the 
State by combining to bid low at the auction, or again by 
extorting from the population more than was due to the State. 
Thirdly, the taxpayer must be protected from oppression, and 
also punished for dishonesty to the State, by allowing stringent 
inquisition into his produce in the latter case, facilities of appeal 
to an umpire in the former. Such are the general lines of the 
legislation before us. 


The first chapter or division (A), cols. 1-22, so far as we 
can understand its mutilated text, contained the regulations 
governing the relations of the Government officials in each 
district, particularly of the OIKONOMOC and his deputy or 
ANTirpA4>EYC, to the men or companies of men who undertook 
the farming of the revenue. It appears from col. 15 that no 
such official was allowed to take any such contract, either per- 
sonally or through his slaves an obvious precaution which 
separated at once the official from the tax-farming class. In 
this chapter the regulations seem to be quite general ; no 
special tax is even once mentioned. 

The second chapter (B), contained in cols. 23-37, is far more 
definite, and contains the orders and regulations for the trans- 


mutation of the share (AflOMOlPA) of one-sixth of the produce 
of all the vineyards and orchards of Egypt, hitherto paid to 
gods of Egypt, into a Government tax, payable to the deified 
queen Arsinoe Philadelphus. The just assessment and collection 
of this tax must have been very difficult ; for much of it had 
been paid to the local temples ; the produce of wine is always 
very variable : the new form of the tax must have been 
unpopular ; the State is therefore not satisfied with a statement 
under affidavit from each cultivator, but authorizes the farmer 
of the tax to watch the vintage, to pry into the profits, and to 
secure both his own advantage and that of the State. This 
supervision of the actual gathering of the crop is likely to 
entail great hardships on the cultivator, for the inspector may 
not attend when the time of harvest requires the crop to be 
saved, and may exact bribes from the peasants either for his 
prompt attendance or for an estimate favourable to themselves *. 
These contingencies are provided for here, as they are not in 
modern states which levy similar taxes, by permitting the 
peasants to gather grapes and make wine under protest that it 
cannot be delayed, and transact the payment of the tax directly 
with the Government officials. For the details I must refer 
the reader to the commentary. 

Wherever this share of the gods (ATTOMOIPA) occurs, we 
find coupled together vineyards and orchards (HAPAAEICOl). 
This is the case both in the Petrie papyri and on the Rosetta 
stone, as well as in other fragments of that period. All the 
regulations concerning the making and storing of wine from the 
AMHEAflNEC are given us explicitly enough. But when we 
come to inquire what was the produce of the TTAPAAEICOI, 

1 Such is the case now in Turkey, and is, or was, the case in Greece, when 
taxes were assessed upon standing crops, before they could be reaped. 


and why they were coupled with vineyards in this tax, we 
come upon a serious difficulty. What is meant by the term, 
and is our orchard a proper equivalent ? It was adopted by 
Xenophon from the Persians, among whom it meant a park 
with trees, even large enough for a game preserve. It is 
distinguished not only from a vineyard, but from a garden 
(KHTTOC) in a document among the Petrie papyri (II. p. 68). 
Another document in that series contrasts it with a palm- 
grove (<t>OINIKnN), apparently for taxing purposes. Another 
specifies a pumpkin-field (CIK VHP ATOM). What then was 
the produce of a paradeisos in a country where very few 
kinds of fruit-trees grow ? There is but one column (29) 
which deals with HAPAAEICOI, without closer specification, 
except that here an estimate of the value is to be made in 
money, and the sixth paid in money, not in kind. Were it not 
for this provision, I should be inclined to hold that the crop 
of the paradeisoi which paid the sixth to the gods was no other 
than grapes. For we know that in such climates it is both 
grateful and convenient to grow vines as creepers on trees and 
trellises, and we have in the Petrie papyri (I. xxix.) one distinct 
mention of an ANAAENAPAC which is exactly a case in point. 
As it is by this established that vines were so grown, how is 
it that there is no mention of the anadendras in the present 
careful legislation concerning grapes and wine ? Here again 
the obvious answer is that such cultivation came under the 
title of TTAPAAEICOI, and that the fruit of these orchards 
consisted chiefly, if not wholly, of grapes. It seems to me 
exceedingly improbable that in a country noted for its very 
careful and varied agriculture, any number of different pro- 
ducts should be confused under the title KAPTTOC, as in col. 29. 
13, without any apparent enumeration. I therefore still incline 



to the belief that the AFTOMOIPA was a sacred due on wine 
only, probably coeval with its introduction into Egypt in 
ancient times, and that, as all the succeeding chapter of our 
papyrus relates exclusively to oil, so this does to wine. But 
as I have not been able to persuade either Mr. Grenfell or 
Prof. Wilcken that this is so, and as they do not feel the 
difficulty which I have here stated to be of serious weight, 
I shall not here press the matter further l . 


We now turn to the third part (C) of the papyrus, which 
concerns exclusively the State monopoly in oil. It was this 
part of the text, which is in a far better state of preservation 
than the rest, which led me at first to use the term Monopoly 
Papyrus for the whole. But seeing that the growing of wine 
and of orchard produce, treated in the second chapter, was 
not a monopoly, and that the first chapter is quite general, 
Mr. Grenfell thought the word too narrow, and proposed to 
call it the Revenue Papyrus. But this term, now adopted, is 
really too wide. For so far as we can see, no source of 
revenue is anywhere discussed in it which is not levied 
through middlemen, through tax-farmers, and in no case are 
the officials to deal directly with the peasants, unless the tax- 
farmer fails to perform his duties. But for its awkwardness, 
the tax-farming^ and but for its pedantry, the Telonic Papyrus 
would be the most accurate designation. 

The manufacture of wine was only under State control in 
the same way that our manufacture of beer and spirits is, for 
in both cases there is no limitation of the amount produced 

1 At the close of this Introduction the reader will find an important inscription 
bearing on this topic discussed. Cf. also Mr. Grenfell's note, pp. 94-6. 


or the retail price demanded, but an inquiry into the actual 
quantity as a basis for taxation ; in both cases the excise takes 
care to watch and register the amount produced in each locality 
of manufacture, and so far to pry into private industry. 

The manufacture of oil was carried on under quite different 
conditions, such for instance as that of tobacco is in some modern 
states. For here not only is all private enterprise forbidden, but 
the very amount of seed to be sown, the amount of oil produced, 
the retail price all these are fixed with the greatest care. 
Importation of oil for trading purposes is strictly forbidden, 
and every care is taken to secure a fixed income from this 
source for the State. There is reason to believe that there 
were other productions laid under this restriction. Papyrus 
is said to have become extinct owing to a private monopoly 1 , 
probably introduced to prevent the library of Pergamum from 
obtaining it in large quantities or on easy terms. But in 
the present case the State takes special care that a sufficient 
quantity of oil shall be produced each year. For this the oecp- 
nomus and the nomarchs are bound to provide, and in case of 
difficulty in procuring seed the State is even prepared to advance 
it to the cultivator, just as in Ulster, thirty years ago, landlords 
commonly advanced flax-seed to their tenants, in order that the 
crop might be sown in good time. In most Ulster leases of 
that day there was also a clause restricting the amount upon 
each farm, in the landlord's interest, lest the tenant should 
exhaust the land with this crop. 

The first point of interest in this section is the total absence 
of olive oil. This in itself was no small evidence of the 
antiquity of the ordinance, for we know from Strabo that in 
his day the olive was quite at home in the Fayoum, and we 

1 Strabo, xvii. i, 15. 
e 2 


may presume that the large settlement of Greeks there during 
Philadelphus' reign soon brought this favourite tree from their 
old homes into this rich province. But it was only here, and 
in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, apparently in the specially 
Greek parts of Egypt, that it was even in his day cultivated. 

The oils dealt with in the chapter before us are mainly of 
two kinds : sesame oil, and kiki, which is our castor oil, made 
from the croton-plant, a tall shrub, with a ferruginous glow 
upon its dark green leaves, which may yet be seen cultivated 
for the same purpose in Upper Egypt and Nubia. This latter 
is, however, a foetid oil, mainly used for lamps. In addition 
to these two, which seem to be the principal products, 
other kinds are mentioned, viz. colocynth oil, made from the 
seeds of gourds ; cuecinum, made from the head of a thistle 
or artichoke ; and linseed oil l . It is not quite certain how far 
the production of these lesser kinds was controlled, but the 
chief kinds were certainly both grown and gathered under 
State supervision ; the oil was made in State presses ; it was 
sold by the middlemen to the retailers in each village by 
auction, and was retailed at fixed prices. 

1 We read in Pliny, N. H. xix. 5 (26) 'Aegypto mire celebratur [raphanus] 
olei propter fertilitatem quod e semine eius faciunt. Hoc maxime cupiunt serere, 
si liceat, quoniam et quaestus plus quam e frumento, et minus tributi est nullum- 
que ibi copiosius oleum/ This seems to be the pafyavfKaiov of Dioscorides, i. 26, 
and is therefore a species of oil additional to all those mentioned in our papyrus. 
The variety now called oleifera of the Raphanus sativus is still used in Egypt and 
Nubia for the purpose. Pliny speaks (xv. 7) of the sesamine, and also of the 
kiki, or castor oil, of which he describes the manufacture, likewise of the cnecinum 
if we adopt a discarded MS. reading now rehabilitated (I think) by our papyrus. 
He calls the cnecus a sort of urtica, a thistle, probably a species of artichoke. The 
various aromatic oils mentioned by him and by Dioscorides, and used both for 
medicines and unguents, have their parallel in the curious list I have published in 
the Pet. Pap. ii. p. [114]. 


The details of this legislation are amply illustrated in 
Mr. Grenfell's commentary, but, as might be expected, many 
are the difficulties which arise in the interpretation. For in 
all such documents, the most necessary assumptions are those 
which every contemporary reader took for granted as obvious, 
whereas we have to infer or detect them from stray and casual 

In the whole of this intricate legislation, intended to secure 
the State from loss, the peasants from oppression, the middle- 
men from injustice, the restrictions are so precise, the room 
for profit on the part of the middlemen so small, that we are 
at a loss to know why men of wealth or of credit should 
have competed at auction for a business so onerous and 
so invidious. 


The next question is one constantly suggested in this 
papyrus, but which has long agitated the minds of those who 
deal with the political economy of Ptolemaic Egypt, and espe- 
cially with that of the third century B.C. It is the relation 
of silver to copper in the many prices which are set down 
sometimes in the one, sometimes in the other. On the compli- 
cated questions of the standard metal, the rate of exchange, 
and the ratio of weights under the Ptolemies, Mr. Grenfell has 
attained to a new solution which seems both simple and satis- 
factory, and which, if it be generally adopted, will save the 
world from much idle speculation. I shall not here anticipate 
his discoveries, but merely refer the reader particularly to this 
important feature in the book, Appendix III. 



Another interesting question raised by the present text 
is that of the variety of tenure in land (cols. 24 and 36) 
throughout Egypt. We have first the I EPA I~H (which Prof. 
Wilcken restored for us in 36. 8), apparently not subject to 
the AHOMOIPA, though it appears from the Rosetta stone that 
there was a tax of a KEPAMION per aroura due to the State upon 
its vineyards, remitted by Epiphanes. Then comes the land 
held in KAHPOI, or farms granted by the king to soldiers 
(KAHPOYXOl), of which we hear so much in the Petrie papyri. 
There is further the land held EN AHPEAI, in gift from the 
king. For that this must be the meaning appears plainly 
from parallel passages in the books of Maccabees (I. x. 29 ; 
II. iv. 31). This tenure, then, must have been either a life 
tenure, as opposed to the KAHPOC^ which was hereditary, or 
must have referred to some other limitation, such as the 
produce of some particular crop, or the cession of the taxes 
due to the king from a definite estate. Another tenure, 
EN CYNTAZEI, is mentioned (43. 12) as distinguished from 
EN AOPEAl, but what is remarkable, both may include the 
possession of a village, as well as land. This points back to 
those cases where the king gave a favourite or a mistress the 
revenue of a town as a private gift. Possibly CYNTAZIC means 
by commutation of the various imposts for a yearly contribution, 
which the people could levy among themselves and pay to 
the State. Seeing that the document is corrected according to 
the copy of Apollonius the AIOIKHTHC, and that a man of 
this name appears in the Petrie papyri as holding this office 
in the Fayoum two years later, the conclusion is hardly to 
be avoided, that we have before us the copy of the ordinance 


specially intended for this province, and accordingly that the 
KAHPOYXOI here mentioned are those whom we find in the 
province in the succeeding years. Hitherto we possess no 
definite evidence of such 'a class elsewhere in Egypt; the 
inTTEIC KATOIKOI of the next century at Memphis or Thebes 
were evidently no landholders in the same sense. It is not 
impossible that though KAHPOYXIA is here stated quite gener- 
ally among the various forms of land tenure, this particular 
colony in the Fayoum may be intended. In any case, the 
documents quoted from the twenty-third year of the reign 
prove to us that the settlement of the Fayoum was not 
a sudden, but a gradual legislation. 

The Petrie papyri show us the extension of dykes and 

draining operations, and the larger reclaiming of land, which took 

place in the province in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth years 

of the reign. But the new title, Arsinoite nome, is not known 

in the present document, where the word H AIMNH is used, 

and this seems also the case with the earlier Petrie papyri. 

There is but one fragment among them of the thirtieth year 

(according to Mr. Grenfell) which speaks of the nome under 

its new name. We may therefore refer this honour done to 

the queen, probably in relation to her ceding part of her 

property in the fish of the lake for the reclaiming of land, to 

the last years of her life, possibly even to an act of gratitude 

passed after her decease. The fact of her being deified during 

her life prevents our laying any stress upon the curious simplicity 

with which she is named. She appears either as Arsinoe 

Philadelphus, or still more briefly as H 4>IAAAEA<t>OC. But 

this absence of titles is here rather a distinction than the 

reverse. She appears simply as a goddess, like Aphrodite 

or I sis. I have commented elsewhere on the remarkable 


absence of honorary titles in all the early papyri. The many 
grades of the official hierarchy which appear in the following 
centuries seem as yet unknown. Not only the king and queen, 
but the court officials appear without any cumbrous distinctions 
attached to their names. 


What were the actual burdens of the husbandman, and 
what reward he got for his labour, will only be gradually 
determined, according as we gain more and more knowledge. 
Some of the prices given in this papyrus will help us in 
this inquiry. Hitherto our evidence comes either from other 
papyri on the same subject, or from ancient historians who 
tell us of the condition of other Hellenistic lands. The case 
of Syria and Palestine, as we find it in the books of Maccabees, 
and in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews^, affords us the closest 
analogies. It may not be considered irrelevant, in a general 
introduction like the present, to call attention to these parallel 
cases, which will help the reader to appreciate the details in 
the present document. 

But first as regards parallel papyri. In the Petrie collection 
there are several which have only become intelligible since 
we have examined them by the light of the present text. 
Thus the long list of names, and of sums which are multiples 
of seven -, which I had problematically set down as a taxing 
list (P. P. II. xxviii.), I found to be a list of retailers of oil, and 
of the amounts which they undertake to sell, in accordance with 
the express direction of our papyrus (col. 47. 10-15). Another 
(xxxix. (a) ) is concerned with the amount of croton to be sown 

1 xii. 4 sq. 

2 Cf. Mr. Grenfell's explanation of these figures in Appendix III. 


on each farm, and perhaps with the seed to be advanced. As 
regards the EKTH or AFTOMOIPA on wine henceforth to be paid 
to Arsinoe Philadelphia, we have not only II. xxx. (e) and xlvi., 
but the papyrus Q of the Leiden collection, formerly referred 
to a later date. There is also P. P. II. xxvii. (i), which states 
the wine produce of a farm, and adds the one-sixth on fruits and 
garlands of flowers, so that this produce is classed with that of 
the vineyard. This maybe the meaning of adding TTAPAAEICOI 
throughout section B of our papyrus to the AMTTEAnNEC. 

There is also an interesting letter, complete (P. P. II. xi. (6) ), 
calling upon the oeconomus, or perhaps the tax-farmer, to 
attend on the next day but one, when the vine-grower was 
going to have his vintage, according to the ordinance in col. 25. 
Other coincidences are mentioned in Mr. Grenfell's commentary, 
and in the Appendix to Part II of the Petrie papyri he has 
made some important corrections, or additions, to my readings 
of the fragments just cited. Thus the indirect light shed upon 
the early papyri we have found makes it certain that we shall 
be able to interpret future discoveries of the same kind with 
greater certainty, and ultimately reconstruct a definite and 
connected account of the whole financial system of the Ptolemaic 

As regards their external system, we have the curious 
narrative of Josephus, already cited, from which it appears that 
as regards Palestine and Coele-Syria, the leading notables went 
down to Egypt to a yearly auction of the taxes, no doubt 
arranging on the way to what sum they would bid. But their 
calculations are upset by the young adventurer who offers the 
king a far larger sum, gets off giving security by cracking jokes 
with the king, and, taking an armed force to help him, demands 
higher taxes, confiscates the property (and even the lives) of 



recusants, and by remitting to the king a larger sum than he 
had promised, gains his favour and confidence, and remains con- 
troller of the taxes of Palestine for twenty years. Here the 
King of Egypt does no more than insist upon the punctual 
payment of a sum fixed at the auction ; he gives, however, 
military support to his tax-farmer in carrying out any punish- 
ment which the latter deems necessary, and even threatens to 
take up the land and apportion it among new settlers, if his 
claims are not satisfied. But into the details he seems to 
make no inquiry. 

A very different picture of the taxation of the same province 
by the Seleucids appears in the documents quoted by Josephus 
from the books of the Maccabees, and dating a century later. 
If these documents indeed describe a normal state of things, 
we need not wonder that the rule of the Ptolemies was more 
popular in Palestine than that of their rivals at Antioch. The 
facts come out incidentally in the offers made by rival claimants 
to the Syrian throne, who are bidding for the support of the 
Jews. Even if the letters cited are not genuine copies of State 
documents, there is no reason to doubt that the author of them, 
especially in the first Maccabees, described an actual state of 
things. King Demetrius (Soter II, in 152 B.C.) writes (x. 29) : 
' And now I let you off, and remit all the Jews from the taxes, and 
from the price of salt, and from the crowns (the Roman aurum 
coronarium l ), and what I was entitled to take in lieu of the third 
part of the sown crops and in lieu of the half of the tree crop.' 
Many more imposts, such as the tolls on visitors to Jerusalem, 
are mentioned in the sequel. We have not only these, but 

1 Cf. also Josephus, A. J. xii. 3, 3, for a similar letter from Antiochus the 
Great to an officer called Ptolemy concerning the Jews. We have here too 

TOV arffyavirov (j)6pov, not TOV nepi TUV (i\uv (not nX\a>v, as in mOSt texts). 


many other small taxes mentioned in the P. P. II. xxxix. (e) (f) 
and in the rest of the collection which Mr. Grenfell is preparing 
for publication. 

A comparison of the respective burdens which the second 
Ptolemy demanded in 260 B.C. and the eighth Seleucid in 
150 B.C. is perhaps hardly possible from our evidence. It is 
likely, however, that the apparently much greater tax of 
50 per cent, on the crop of trees in Palestine may include 
the olive-oil crop, whereas this part of the Egyptian revenue 
was a seed crop, and, so far as we can see, the cultivator got 
a very small share of it. But these details must be left to the 


The whole document has undergone corrections, as is ex- 
pressly stated more than once upon the face of it, and as appears 
from various erasures and changes, and in Part C from large 
additions. We can also show that this revision was carelessly 
done. From internal evidence, explained in the commentary, 
and from the curious repetition of a chapter (cols. 59 and 60) 
without any apparent reason, Mr. Grenfell was led to an acute 
conjecture concerning the whole appendix on the nomes which 
ensues. He believes that at this point (col. 58) the corrector 
desired to fasten on a supplementary roll, containing the revised 
list of nomes, but that he made the mistake of allowing the same 
chapter to appear twice, immediately before and after his new 
junction. The height of the papyrus, which here changes, is 
strongly in favour of this hypothesis. It appears from the 
fragments Mr. Grenfell has since acquired that another roll of 
the same character contained what we desiderated in Part A, 
a general account besides regulations for special taxes of the 



working of the royal and local banks in regulating the accounts 
of the tax-farming. 

Unfortunately these fragments are in such a condition as 
to make all inferences from them hazardous. But there is 
one interpretation of cols. 73-8 which is worth setting down 
here, as it may suggest a new idea in reading other fragments, 
and will probably be established in course of time, if it indeed 
has hit the truth. If we were to read the heading AIATPAMMA 
TPATTEZHN flNHC, and consider the whole section as one 
regulating the farming out of local banks by the State, under 
the control of a central or BACIAIKH TPATTEZA in the capital 
of the nome, we should have found a new sort of tax-farming 
hitherto unsuspected. The existence of local banks in towns, 
and even villages, is made certain by 75. i. The mention 
of buying the bank seems also beyond doubt (75. 4). It 
would seem quite reasonable that if so many local banks were 
required ; if it were even necessary to make up accounts in 
each village daily, as is not impossible (cf. the difficult passage 
57. 15-6), some such sub-letting would be almost necessary 
to avoid an endless staff of Government officials, and if it 
did take place, it will probably be found that the Jews in 
Egypt undertook this business. 

It is a sad loss that we have not the details preserved 
which seem to regulate the rate of exchange between silver 
and copper (col. 76). But of course if the local banks were 
farmed out, such regulations were highly necessary. I had 
inferred from the receipts printed in the Petrie papyri (II. xxvi.) 
that the bank in (the Arsinoite) Ptolemais did business by 
means of agents all through the province. It now seems 
very doubtful that this interpretation can be maintained. 

The subsequent columns are, if possible, still more disap- 


pointing, for here there were regulations affecting the produce 
from flax, both clothes and sails, for which Egypt was so 
famous, and which are specially mentioned as an industry 
of the temples taxed by the Crown in the Rosetta inscription 
(1. 1 8). This text, and the earlier inscription known as the 
Canopus inscription, can now be conveniently consulted in my 
Empire of Ike Ptolemies. 


The problems suggested by the two lists of nomes the 
brief enumeration in col. 31, and the longer exposition with their 
respective burdens in cols. GO sqq. are many and interesting. 
For they do not agree with the earlier and later Greek 
enumerations those of Herodotus 1 and of Strabo, still less 
with the older Egyptian, or the later Roman, as given by 
the coins of the nomes under the Antonines 2 , and by Ptolemy 
the geographer. It is certain that there were frequent changes 
in the limitation and arrangement of these counties, as we 
might call them ; the two lists before us are written down in 
the twenty-seventh year of the same reign, and yet they show 
some notable discrepancies. It is not therefore surprising 
that Herodotus, visiting Egypt some 180 years earlier, and 
Strabo some 240 later, should not agree with either. It 
was not, moreover, within the scope of Herodotus' account to 
give an accurate list. We therefore are not surprised that 
Herodotus, specifying the nomes in which the military caste 
dwelt (ii. 165), gives only nomes situated in the Delta and 

1 All that is to be known concerning Herodotus' list has been gathered by 
Wiedemann in his excellent commentary on the historian's Egyptian book (II.), 
pp. 574 sq. and the references there. 
* Cf. Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes, published by the British Museum. 


the Theban district. But from Strabo we should have expected 
the full list ; wherefore the commentators on his account have 
either supposed a lacuna in our texts, or negligence in the 
geographer, because he names only twenty -four nomes, 
gathering all those of the southern country (like Herodotus) 
under the Thebaid, though we know that the old Egyptians 
counted at least forty. In the most recent atlas of ancient 
Egypt (published by the Egypt Exploration Fund) there are 
even fifty enumerated. The two lists before us vindicate 
Strabo remarkably as regards this supposed omission. They 
not only agree with him in specifying twenty-four nomes ; they 
also give the Thebaid as the last in the series 1 . Strabo 
therefore must have copied his list from some financial docu- 
ment such as this, which recognized the whole southern province 
as no complex of nomes, but as one district under the control 
of a single governor. It is even easy for us now to lay down 
the southern boundary of the financial nomes from Strabo's text 
(xvii. i, $ 41): 'Then comes the Hermopolitic military station 
(<t>v\aKrj) a sort of custom-house for the produce from the 
Thebaid from hence they begin to measure the schoeni of 60 
stadia, up to Syene and Elephantine ; then the Thebaic station, 
and a canal leading to Tanis 2 .' The two military posts, one 

1 There is an interesting parallel in the second-century inscription in honour 
of Aristides (the rhetor), where 01 TON 0HBAIKON NOMON OIKOYNTEC 
(unless it only means TTEPI 0HBAC) EAAHNEC are enumerated after those of 
Alexandria, Hermoupolis, the BO YAH of Antinoopolis, and the Greeks of the 
Delta. CIG 4679. 

2 This latter was of course the best mode of irrigating the lower country 
above the reach of the Nile, the water being drawn from the river at this remote 
point and brought on the higher level thus secured along the Arabian margin of 
the Nile valley. 

The account of Agatharchides is quite similar (Photius, 22, in Geog. Grace. 


to watch imports down the river, the other to watch them 
coming up the river, are like the custom-houses of jealous' 
neighbours, such as those of the Servians and the Turks 
in the present day. 

Having recorded this negative agreement between Strabo 
and the lists in the papyrus, we come to compare them in 
detail, both as to the number, order, and titles of the nomes. 
All three agree in giving us twenty-four nomes and the 
Thebaid. But in the names and the order of the twenty-four 
they differ considerably, and the whole number is only made 
up in the second list by counting Memphis as distinct from 
the Memphite nome. Several of Strabo's names, which we 
should have thought of old standing, do not appear, viz. 
Menelaites, Momemphites, Phragroriopolites ; but the second 
and last of these most probably represent the Libyan and 
Arabian nomes of the papyrus. Moreover, Strabo gives names 
(Hermoupolis, Aphroditopolis, Kynopolis) to nomes of the Delta 
which appear in the papyrus as nomes of Upper Egypt. The 
general order, beginning with the western Delta from Alex- 
andria, and giving the nomes along each of the three great 
outlets of the Nile, then ascending to Memphis and southward 
to the Theban custom-house, is the same. So that here the 
nominal divergence, which amounts to seven new names, may 
not be a real one. But to identify the seven new names 
respectively with our lists is not easy. 

When we proceed to a closer examination of the two lists 
(cols. 31 and 60, sqq.) in our papyrus (I will call them a and b) 

Mm. i. p. 122, ed. C. Mtiller, Didot). From Memphis to the Thebaid there are 
five nomes, one of which is called *vXoq, or 2^iwi, where the tolls are levied. These 
are vopol t6wv. But then follow a list of <& in the Thebaid, in which only 
one nome, the Tentyrite, is mentioned, and Thebes omitted. 


we find that there are serious discrepancies not only in the 
order, but in the names. Were these lists handed down to us 
in texts of diverse age, we should at once infer that there had 
been in the interval a formal redistribution of the nomes. Such 
an explanation is impossible in the case of two contemporaneous 
lists, unless there were special reasons for the variation in a list 
required for the oil monopoly only. 

The first difficulty is the absence of the Nitriote nome from 
a, or rather of this name, for it probably corresponds to either 
a 3 or a 6, both unfortunately mutilated. For the second of 
these I conjectured MENEAAIC, i.e. the region about the town 
called Menelaos, after Ptolemy Soter's brother. This town was 
certainly situated in or by the Nitrian country, but the form of 
the ending is without precedent among the nomes, and we know 
from Strabo's list that there was afterwards a nome called 
MENEAAITHC along the seacoast east of Alexandria. But for 
the present I have no better suggestion to offer. There is no 
town-name with this ending to be found in any of the geographies 
of Egypt. Supposing then that the enigmatical -AAIAI cor- 
responds to NITPinTHC in b, where shall we place #3? It 
would appear that the clerk of b had absorbed either a 3 or 
a 6 in the Libya of his list, and then, finding himself one short 
of the official number (24), had thrust in MEM<I>ITI quite 
out of its place, and properly belonging to MEM4>EI to fill 
it up. There is good reason to identify the A EAT A of a with 
the HAIOTTOAITHC of b, for Strabo tells us that the apex of the 
Delta was especially so called, and Heliopolis is situated close 
to it, though on the Arabian side of the river. 

There seems no law or assignable cause for the variations in 
the order of a and b. At all events, it may be inferred with 
certainty that neither was copied from a fixed official list, though 


there was a general consent that the number of nomes, ex- 
cluding the Thebaid, amounted to twenty-four. 

Thus 5-9, though varying in order, are a group which fairly 
corresponds in both, a n and 15 correspond to b 14 and 10. 
a 17 and 18 correspond to b 17 and 16, except that a 17 adds 
Memphis to its nome, whereas b 1 7 gives only Memphis, while 
b 24 is the Memphite nome, thus bringing the list of b up 
to twenty-four. We now proceed to the country south of 
Memphis, a 19 and 24 (EPMOfTOAITHC and OZYPYrXITHC) 
correspond to b 18 and 19. a 21-24 agree with b 20-23, if 
the lost 23 be, as I think it must be, the Kynopolite. Both 
lists end with the Thebaid. It will be found, therefore, that, 
with many small transpositions, there is nevertheless a general 
conformity between the lists. The occurrence of H AIMNH and 
of AIMNITHC in a 22 and b 21 for the subsequent Arsinoite 
nome, first revealed to us that the complete re-settlement, and 
the re-naming, of that district did not take place till after the 
twenty-seventh year of Ptolemy II. Alexandria belonged to no 
nome, and had a reserved territory in the Libyan nome from 
which it received produce. This reminds us in a general way 
of the case of Washington with its territory, which belongs to 
no State in the American Republic. The use of the large 
terms Libya and Arabia as names of nomes is also foreign 
to Strabo and Herodotus, and was probably intended to signify 
that the desert limits were in each case unfixed l . Possibly the 

1 In one of the partitions of the empire of Alexander (at Triparadeisus) Ptolemy 
was granted Egypt and the adjoining countries, especially whatever he could 
conquer to the west. Hence to claim Libya in these lists may even have had 
a political origin. In Theban papyri of the next century, such as the Turin 
papyrus VIII and the B. M. CCCCI, we find Arabia and Libya used simply for 
the east and west banks of the Nile. 



occurrence of the special titles Libyarchs (in this papyrus) 
and Arabarchs also points to the fact that there was here 
a military officer instead of a nomarch, as there were certainly 
desert marauders to be kept in order by what are called in the 
Petrie papyri EPHMO<1>YAAKEC. I append the two lists, and 
Strabo's enumeration, of the nomes, for the convenience of 
those who desire to verify, without trouble, what I have said. 
The figures after the names in the third list indicate where 
these names occur in a and b. 

Col. 31 (a). 






6. ?]AAIAI 





12. CEGPniTHC 

13. <t>APBAl9ITHC 


1 In the Delta, and not to be 
belongs to Upper Egypt. 

Strabo, xvii. 18 sqq. 

Col. 60 sq. (b). 












P'C (9, 7) 
A0PIBITHC (5, 8) 
TTPOCnniTHC (4, 3) 

<t>APBAieiTHC (13, 15) 
TANITHC (16, 13) 

identified with the same name in the other two lists, which 



Col. 31 (a). 




17. /v\EM<t>ITHC KAI 






22. H AIMNH 



Col. 60 sq. (b). 










Strabo, xvii. i 8 sqq. 



BACTOC (15, 10) 
HPAKAEHTHC (23, 20) 
APCINOITHC (22, 2l) 
KYNOnOAITHC (21, 23?) 
OZYPYfXITHC (20, 19) 


Such are the general considerations which the reader may 
carry with him to the closer study of the text. We cannot 
claim for it an universal interest such as that aroused by 
the discovery of lost classical works, or of copies of known 
literary masterpieces exceptional in their antiquity. But to 
those who desire a closer insight into the great and highly 
civilized empire of the Ptolemies, and the causes of its__extrafs 
ordinary wealth, such documents as this are of inestimable! 
value. For they supplement and correct the vague statements 
of ancient historians, as well as the theories whereby modern 
scholars have sought to explain away their inconsistencies and 
obscurities. Moreover to the student of Hellenistic Greek, 
of that common dialect which pervaded the civilized world 


for some centuries, such a document affords great additional 
materials, both in vocabulary and in syntax. It throws new 
light upon the contemporary documents known as the LXX 
translation of the Old Testament, and tends to corroborate 
the dubious traditions of their origin. From all these points 
of view, the present papyrus affords a supplement of vast 
importance to our knowledge. 


There is but one inscription of this period known to me which 
bears upon the subjects of our papyrus, but its relation to them 
is so intimate, that I can hardly avoid quoting it here. It was 
first printed in the Bulletin de Corresp. Heltinique, xiv. 162. 



Let me dispose of the preamble very briefly. This decree 
of the city of Telmessos in Lycia is dated 241-0 B.C., shortly 
after the great campaign of the reigning king, Euergetes I, 
against Syria, wherein he had established firmly the hold 
which his grandfather had taken of the coast cities of Caria 
and Lycia (cf. Petrie pap. II. xlv). I believe the eponymous 
priest mentioned to be a local priest, not the priest of Alexander, 


&c, at Alexandria. It appears that the city of Telmessos had 
been handed over to Ptolemy son of Lysimachus by the reigning 
king's father, Ptolemy son of Ptolemy, as Ptolemy II was 
usually called, to distinguish him from his father, Ptolemy 
son of Lagos. The expression TTAPAAABnN is quite vague, 
used of a son succeeding his father, or a governor receiving 
authority from the king, or of any other appointment. Here 
it seems to me clearly to signify a present from the king. This 
personage had received Telmessos EN AHPEAI. We know 
that he was a grandee in Asia Minor, for a decree issued by 
Antiochus II (printed in DBCH. xiii. 525), appointing this 
Ptolemy's daughter, Berenike, priestess of the deified Syrian 
queen, Stratonike, speaks of him as related to the king in blood 
sible, though we cannot trace the relationship, that this is 
more than a mere title of peerage (CYrTENHC), and that the 
person in question may even have been the eldest son of 
Arsinoe Philadelphia and King Lysimachus of Thrace, who 
disappears from history without any evidence of his murder 
by Ptolemy Keraunos, when the younger children were put 
to death. 

At all events this personage, receiving Telmessos from 
Philadelphus, found it sorely tried by the great wars on the 
Lycian coast during the early campaigns of Euergetes I. 

The inscription proceeds : 

These are the ta-xes on fruit trees, which in Syria at one time 
amounted to 50 per cent, (i Mace. x. 29), and on pastures. 



-TAC NATA (sic) [Til]l TE TEnprni KAI Tfll AEKATrtNHI 

It is from the close connexion of these taxes in our papyrus, 
and from the importance of wine-taxes, that I supply OINHPAC, 
not CITHPAC, as do the editors of the text. Then follow 
the vegetables grown, I think, not in TTAPAAEICOI, but in 
KHTTOI, viz. millet (of two kinds), sesame, and lupine. On these 
crops the population had been oppressively taxed and worried 
by the TEAHNAI, and this according to the law. This 
Ptolemy enacted that they should only pay a tithe (AEKATH) 
upon them all, and, what was perhaps a far greater relief, 
should pay it on the. areas planted with these crops, and surveyed 
jointly for the husbandman and the tithe-farmer. So I render 
the strange word NATA, which completely puzzled the former 
editors. Some mistake has been made, as the letters are clear; 
the smallest change we can assume is of course the most 
reasonable as an emendation. I propose NEAT A 1 , in which the 
graver, perhaps because of the pronunciation of the word, 
omitted the E. It means in this sense fallow or ploughed 
fields, but surely may also mean fields in this condition after 
the crop is sown. The tithe, therefore, would be estimated 
on an average yield of the area under cultivation for each sort 
of produce. It is added that all the subsidiary charges (beyond 

1 I had thought of ANTA (adv.), FIANTA, AYTA, &c. NEATA is marked 
oxytone in the Lexica. 


the tithe) which had been levied on the wheat crop, were also 

I do not believe that any governor deputed by Ptolemy 
could possibly have made such concessions. The financial 
officer of the province, O ETTI TnN TTPOCOAHN, would not 
have tolerated it, especially as it was according to the law 
enforced by the Egyptians. But if this Ptolemy held Telmessos 
either EN AHPEAI or EN CYNTAZEl, which latter I take to mean 
for a rent, such benevolences were possible. 

I return now to the question of various taxes. The enume- 
ration of the lesser crops is what strikes me as affording 
a remarkable contrast to the language of our papyrus. Is it 
possible that all these crops were grown in flAPAAElCOl? 
Even if they were, why are they not specified in our papyrus ? 
Is it possible that they were, but that the enumeration is lost 
in one of the lacunae of the text ? These are the difficulties 
which I still feel concerning this portion of our Revenue text. 
On the other hand, if my suggestion OINHPAC be adopted, it 
may be urged that here we have that very combination of wine- 
tax with other taxes on fruits and vegetables, so that the latter 
may have been gathered up under one title. I do not feel 
strongly enough on either side to advocate a decision. 

I will only add that my interpretation of the inscription 
differs widely from that of its first editors, but in no case 
without having carefully considered their arguments. 




(TlTO\u[atov KCU TOV vtov] nroXfuatof) ' * 

Plate I. 

The rest lost. 

>v a>vcov ...... ] Col. 2. 

a[l] 7T(i)X[l}v 
IV T1)[ 

ot e ............................. * 

TOlf [ .............................. j 

The rest lost. 

[r]rjf 8[e y\tv{o]fjiv{r}? 7rp}ocro8ov rats covaif Col. 3. 

[K}vpiva{o]v(riv 01 [avriy\pa<f)ei$ 01 

0(l>T[]f V7r[o TOV OIKOV OfJLOV 

Some lines lost. 
}av CK TTO[. .]i[ 
}a Aoyei 



ov is ray 

The rest lost. 

Col. 4. [rjfjL^poXcydov Aoy[u](ra/x[ej/ . . VTO]S rjfjifpcov X 
[cav] 8e irXeiovs [ra>]j> T[piaKOvra] 

axriv e7TtA[eA]oye[u ...... reoji/ 

ra ava 

Some lines lost. 

}va KGti ra ?ra[ 
} rrji avrrji OIK[ 
10 ajyopacra? [ 

The rest lost. 

Col. 5. CLV & t[f TO fia.(r}l\lK.OV (JMUVCOVTOLL 0(f)l\OVT9 

TTpos fjifpos VTrapxtro) /cat TOLS 
VOLS rj 7r[p}ats 

..... ]CIC 
5 [ ........... ]K[ ............ ] TCOV KO, 

[ ........................ ] OLKOVOfJLWL 

The rest lost. 
Col. 6. eeorra> rot? 7T/)fa[/xev]oty Trapa TU>V 

ytv&OLVTwv XafitLv /i[^j5e cav CVTO? TCOV 
TpiaKovr[a rjfjiepcov] rjt 


( ] 5 

I ]" 

The rest lost. 

KO.I fiapTvpcw TO 8f fTfpov a(r(f)payi(rTOV KO.I Col 7. 

TO, [ovoj/zara TWV 7r/[)ay/LtarUO/ifa)f 
Xoyovf -ypa<f)TCt)o\a}v iraTpoO[v} /cat 
^ /cat 7Tpt TL Ka(rro[$ 7rpay]fi[aTv}Tai 

KCU ft TIVWV <f)opTia>v [ ] 5 

r) Tr[i\rjfjuo[v] /cat r[ ] 

The rest lost. 

tav 8f fjirj crvvtiSoTwv TOVTCOV irpaa-crfTwcrav Col. 8. 

Trapa rwv 7T7r/>ay/xari;/x^a)j/ 

01 irpiajj,cvoL ray eoza 
7TfAoyu<ra<rt[j/] r) T0i[f 
(a}vTtt>v inrep T&V Kara TTTJV [wvqv ei> TCOI] 5 

[\pOVCi)}t CV (1)1 fJTpLQLVTO TTJV {(i)Vr)V ] 

The rest lost. 
a^ rjs 8 av rjpepay rr)v (ovrjv TrapaXapaxriv Ck>l. 9. 

Of !/ TO)L efJWOpltot \[o}-yVTCU [K\Tl0eTCO<Tav 




Some lines lost. 
ev rjfjip(aif 

}<rov y/oa^ai/re 

]ptois Kat tav TI 

Some lines lost. 
B 2 


] TTJL covrji y[ 

10 ] TOVS a7To8[ 



] 8e To[i]f TOV[ 
] covyv TO 8e [ 

Col. 10. (frvXaKrjv 8e TCOV <f)[o8co]v KCLL TCOV 

KCLL ro>v o"iA/3oAouA[aK]a>i/ KO[I] rcov aAAo TI 

] rrji 
5 [ .......................... }(rav VTTO 

[ ........................ TO]V 


Some lines lost. 

7rpo(7o8ov [. . ........ 

10 [ ..... o apya)vrj\s KCU 01 KOivasves co\ ....... ] 

avev TO[V 

[rj TOV avriypafacos Aa/A/3ai/eraxraj/ 

Some lines lost. 

...... OL TY)V covrjv 

f ...... o ai^Tiaev? 0)y av[ 

[ ........ ] KCLL OL (J)o8oi KCU OL Aoi7r[oi OL 


e TL avev TOV 


\a/Sco(rii> 77 7rpaavTf firj ctveveyKcocri] Col. 11. 

irpos TOV avriypa(f)a a7ro[TivTcocrav] 

lf TO fict(TlXlKO[v 

[o $ a]vriypa(p[vs ............... }v 

Some lines lost. 
[ ................. a7TOTivTcocr]av 5 

[. . . . Kai TO fiXafiof TrevfrairXovv 

[ot $ TTpiafjLfvot ray a>v]af fjirj ava<t)pOfj.i>o[i] 

[ .......... TCOL OIKOV>l I? TCOl dVTl 

\ypa(f)i a7roTivTQ)(rav eiy TO (Sacr^XiKov TTCI/TT; 

[KOVTCL ......................... ] 10 

Some lines lost. 

[ ............. TCOl Ofj/COJ/OflGH KCU TCOt 

lavriypafai iraTpoOtv} KCLL TraTpido? 

[ .............. > . . .] TCOI XoyevTrjpicoi 

[ ........ TOV apXCo]vOV TO Ol>OfJ.a KCU 


[TCOV \oytVTwv KOLI TCO]V virypeTtov TCOV 
[y]pa(f)VT{cov CTTI TTJI covrji] 

01 8e oiKovofJio? Kai o avTiypafavs fav Tiv[a] Col. 12. 

Xaficocri Tr/oay/xareuo/xei/oz/ Kai JJLTJ irapa 

8c8oiJiv[o}v ev Trji ypct(^r)(i a}v{aye\Tco(ra.v TTI 

TOV ftacriXfa Trp]gTpov TJ \fi\afirjvai Ti]va \nr OLVTOV 

vov [ ............................. ]co 

Some lines lost. 


Some lines lost. 

}ra[ ] 


rj v7rijp]Tats KCLI 

[ ........ o] fJLtorOof [X]oyVT[rji eKajorau TOV 

1 5 [fJirjvof Spafyfjiat T[pL\aKov[ra VTr]rjpTais 

[TOV fJLrjvo? Spa^fJLai \iKO(ri [(rvfJL(3o]Xo(f)vXai. 
[. . . . 8pa^fjL\at 8[K]a7r[VT]e (f)o8a)i evi 

[ ....... /cajra fjirjva 5/3[a]^/xat CKOLTOV 

Col. 13. [oa~ov]f 

Xo-y[]vra? KOLI VTrrjpera? KCU 
8iaypa\l/aTco o re o[i\K\o]vofJLOS KOLI o 

5 ocrat 8 av wvai c[ ......... ............ ] 

Some lines lost. 

at. ... ........................... ] 

Some lines lost. 
KO[ .................. ] TOV 

T[ ................... }OLKOT[S 

10 vo ................ K 

prf ................... }G>V 09 [8 av} ?roirj 

TL [. . . aTTortjcrct [y TO] fia[o-i}XiKOi> * e 


KCU 6/x (j)v\[aKrjt <rro) }a)? av o fta[(ri\e}vs 

avrov [ta]yj/o>t Col. 14. 

APX(0[N(ON oo-ot a]v oxrt 


irpos rov 7ro>Aouj/[ra ...... ]e5[ ..... 

I- - -M 

Some lines lost. 


Some lines lost. 
[ .................... rats 

wvcov KCU [TO>V KOivwwy /ncfroxJc"? eco-fra)] 10 

09 8 av irapa r[avra rj a}yop[acrr)i\ -q /ir[ ..... ] 

rj /xcrcx 7 ? 4 [7rpa^drja'f}Tai ^va}$ Tpia.K[oiv]a 
KCU rrji cTTtoi ........ o av} yi[vr]}ran. 

KO.L o 8iyyvq>[iJLi>o? fav . .}rj IJLTJ 7rap[a8] 15 

. . .]oy /LIT; 

a7rort[o";t et? ro fiaaiXtKov [fj.v]a? X Col. 16. 

Plate II. 

ot] 5e IJLTJ (ove[i](r0co(raif firjSe Ko[iva)if]iT(i)<rav fJ.rj8[( 81} 

[. .}o<roi TI TWV fiacri\LK(t)v 8ioiKo[v(ri /cat ot \prj\ 
[/xarto-]rat /cat o [t]<raya>y(i>s' ......... ] 

About 8 lines lost. 


80V\OS [8f t 8 fJLTJ KO] 


a.v 8ia(f)op[ 


01 7rpiafjii>oi ray eojVay 7rpa(ro~]ecr6a)o-a[v rouy] 

V7TOT\if TTOLV T[O ]tt K 

8e TL Trapa ra y[ey/oa/x//,e]fa 7roi[rj(rc0}(nv 
aTTOTiveTcoorav t[y TO fiaaiXiKOV *] y 
15 /cat ra reA?? ocra ay [eXXnrrji ..... ] eav 
v roty Xo[oiy tv 


Col 16 [^i a ]Xoyt^eo-^a) Se o oiKOvofj.o$ KCU [o] a[i/ 

Platelll. Trof TOVS ray covay ovra[y Ka.9 /ca]crr[o^ 

a TT/OO r??y 5e/carr;y tcr[ra/Aei/ou ?re] 
5 [/ot ra>^] y[eyji/7;/>iev[ct)lt' v r[ct)i 

About 7 lines lost. 

ra 5 fv TCOL eve[(TTO)TL fj.rjvi 

fJLrj 7rpoo~KaTa[xa>piTa>o-av ety 
10 ava(f)opav fjLtjde [/xera06] 

if Tepa fj,r)8 ei Tif T(*>[v Aoyeurcoji/ rj 

VTrrjpeTcw airo rr;y 7r[poo~o8ov] 

Xa(3a)i> TL SiopOovTCU fJLr}[ ..... rojuro e[t]y [ro] 

15 orai/ 8e TOV tyofJitvov B\La\oyLcrfJLOv\ 
KCU TO Trtiov e/c rou 67raz/Q) 


8r)\ovvT? QCTOV rjv TO Tr[(piov K] TOV 

tav 5c o 7rai>a> \povos fySttav rjt rf^TroirjKW? Col. 17. 

o 8 ewiwv 7riyvrjiJLa /cat a7Tf[\}rjt o [o]t/coi/o[/xoy] 
TO ao'ityyvov fJ.fp[os TTJ?} cwrj[f ...... ] 

TOV Tnyvr)^.aTos T. ...... ]e[ ......... ] 

KaO~T(i)t [ .................. ] 5 

About 7 lines lost. 

TOCTOVTOV cr[ ................. ] iy 5e [ro] 

V(TTpOV Kai K . . . .]ft) TTJf (OVTJ? r)$] 10 

TO CTriyevrjiJLa tcrTiv ([yStia] yfvrjTat OTa> 

aVTO)l T] TTpa^LS TOV ^TeV\y)(0v{T}oS 7Tt 

yevijfiaTOf e* TCOV t(yyvu>v} TCOV 

CTTI Trji cwrjt ts rjv TO [irtpiov fjC 

7rpoTpov 8e K TOV av[ ...... aJTroKa^to-raro) 15 


TO>V $ 8ia\oyio~fJUt)i> our aV 7rotrj}o-rjTai o 

Trpos T[O]VS ray cova? \ovray TTO.VTWV avTiypafya Col. 18. 


K.OLI CLVTOS avTiypa<f)a o~ 
TCOV 8ia\oyio~a r jJL\i>a)[v 

About 7 lines lost 


Ta[vTtypa<f)a TCOV 8taXoy]to-fJLCov Kara (jLrjva TOV 
7Ti [TTJ? 8ioiKijo-O)s rjeray/iei/oi/ KO.I TOV 
'/X[o'/io~]T['rjv orav 8]e o TreTrpa/jLcvof \povo? aira? 
io 8teX0r)i 7ra/>[ecrra>cra]j/ ot ray cava? %OVT? iravres 


o]v Kai 8ia\oyi^(r6u> Trpos O.VTOV? 
o oiKovojJLo? y[viKov] 5taA[oy]t(7/iov Acat TiOei? rrjv re 
TifJLtjv Trj? [TTpoa-oSov /cat] o 5et avrov? 8t[o]p0a)(Tao'0ou . 
15 Kat fts Tavro [ro ... avevrji/e-yfjietyov KO.I tv ot? \povoi? 
e/caora Acat ei [TI airo] TCOV a7r[o7T/o]a/xarft)z/ 77 aAAoy TWOS 
e^o0eiAerai o [et TOV oi]Kovofj,ov jrpa^at KO.L TO XOITTOV 

Col. 19. eav TL 7rpocro(f)iXa)(nv Kat TTOQ-QV Ka<TTO)t TOVTCOV e7Tt/3aAAet 
Kat VTTO TO fjiepo? TOV cvo(f)eiXof4vov] inroypatyaTto oaov 

totat %et Trap avTGov r\ TOV ey['/v]ov ev ots \povots /cat ro 

XOITTOV eav TI 7r[poo-o}(f)[iXrji} ea[v 8 7rt]ye[v]r;/ia rjt 

About 7 lines lost. 
5 [ ........................... ] 

T0]v 7Tl TT)? 8lOlKfJO~C09 T^ 

]rr)v o 8 7rt T7]S 8toiKrj(7Ci)S re[ray/X] 

[vo? 7rto-K}yafjLvos eav r)t TreptytvofJievov e/c [TOUT] 

[a]XXo)[v o)va)v] ea^t JJLCV ety aAAay wva? evo(f)tXrj[i} 
io KaTa[^Q)pto~a]TO) t? TO evo(j)iXofJLvov eav 8e 
aXXo [vo(f)tX]rjt crvv[T\aaTa> TCOI oiKovofJLm 
Trap ov [7r/ooo"ol0etAe[r]a a7ro8ovvat avTO)t OTO.V r) TTI 
AoyfjWty rj}i o 8e ot[KovofJLo]s a7ro[5o]ra> ev rjfjicpais Tptatv 
eav 8 [awatTTiOei? /LIT; a7ro8]a)t TpnrXovv 



8 o] 


OO[OL 8 av] TWV ray cova? f^ovrcov JJLTJ SiaXoyKrcovrou wpos [TOV] Col. 20. 

^J>ou rov oiKoifOJiov KO.L T 


T]pia.Koirra KCU o 

About 7 lines lost. 

................... ]a> aurf 

[ ..... ]p[.] T[O]V 

[ra TJOJ/ vo \JLQV 

[5or]o) 5e /cai o 

[TCOI] 8ia\o-yLa-fJLOv KaO ov 

Kara ravra 

avr[ov a a>]0e<[A] 
rj rrjt] 

r[(ov /3a] 


[o<ra # (r]vyypa<f)ovTou OIKOVOJJLOL tj ot avriypafytLS rj 01 ir[ap av} 
[rwv] oi ra j8a<r4A]tKa 7rpa'/fjLaTVOfJLvot irepi TU>[V fis rovy] 15 



<6AC> TG>V crvyypafywv 


[Ka0cos yy]pa7rrai ev TCOI vofjuai TOV [OIK]OVOIJLOV [....] 

About 4 lines lost. 

Col. 21. 

c 2 


5 ret vvvrtTayiieva [ airoriv }Tcoo~av 

avTcov 01 KaTao"r[aOtvTs . . r]a 8e Trpocr 
TO. ytypafJiiJitva ([tcnrpaa'a'eo-dcDO'av] 01 7T7rpa 



ocra 8 eyKXrjfjLaTa ytverai K T[COV vofJLwv] 

orav fiovXcovrai vTrep 8e rwv \O[LTT(DV eyKA]?7/iar[ft)i/] 
[o<r]a y[i]i/rai e/c rwv vo/juov TK>V Te[\a>viKa)]v VTrep cov 


TCTOLKTdl OTft) KdXeL&OaL V TCOL ^pOVCOl] 1? OV [at] 7T/)OCTo5o[t] 

Col. 22. TreTrpavTOLL KOLL ev aXXrji TpLfj[ri\i{Lai} ea/t fir) rty TCOV TL 

KOLVWVOVVTWV fj V7Tr)pTOVVT(o[l>] TT][l (D\V1]I, Xf)[(f)0]rj 

TOV yypafjLjJLvoi> \povov v ............. 


[tav 8e Tif] TOVTw [Xrj(j)Or}L ................ ] 

About 4 lines lost. 
5 [ ..... ] TCW [ .................. TT/oafarjo) 

[o] OLKOVOIJLOS 7rap[a rwv ....... ]/o[. . .] TCOV KO.L rwv 



Col 23. r , 

B . I ................ ]? 




TOV vtov] nr[o 


( ............... i ....... ]/>[ ..... ] 

About 7 lines lost. 

f ........ TOV ytVO]fJLVOV OLVOV[ 

[. . . . Trjv] KTf)v irapa 8e TWV K[ ......... 

[KO]L TCOV <rrpaTvofjLV(0v KOLI rouf? 

7T(f)VTeVKOTQ)l> Kttl T7)[f V Tfjl ] 

7ravTXr)Tri? KCU o<ra % .......... 

8lOlKlTO.l rj (TlfJiaplO-TOV TrpOTfpo[v d]l(t)lK[tTO 

irpos apyvpiov TTJV KTTJV r[ 

Col. 24. 
Plate I. 

Plate IV. 


[01] 8c ytwpyoi TO, yevr)^iara TpvyaTuxrav 
OTOLV T] wpa [rji K]OU QTO.V apical/Tat Tpvyav 
[7ray]yc\[\T}too-av ran, SIOLKOVVTI rj 

[ran \oi>r]t TJJV covrjv /cat (3ovXofJLvov 

About 7 lines lost. 

Col. 25. 

[o]ra/ 8f OL yecopyoi 

TrapaKaXtiTOMTav TOV TTJV COVTJV 8ioiKo[vma] 



77 TOV Trapa TOVT(OV Kai 7rapayvofj.v[o]v oivo 
TroieiTO) o yecapyos K.O.I /zer/oeir&> TOLS /xe 


lo [\ova]i[v] t^TjTao-fJievois /eat eo-fipa-yLo-fJLevofc] 

[VTTO TOV o]lKOVOfJLOV Kai TOV aVTtypa(f)Ct)[?] 


[ocro]v [3] av TCOV 'y < ypafj[fjL\vcoi' fJLt) TronrjcroHrt ot 
15 [ye]a>/oyo KOLTO, TOV v[o]fJLOi> [S^TrXrjv T-qv a7TOfi[oi\pav 


Col. 26. [Trap 01$ 8e 7r/)0i7ra/)]^e[i] opyava oi[s] OLVOTTOIOVQ-L a.7roypa'^rao~0a)[o-av\ 
[irpos TOV} 8io[LKOw]Ta TTJV covrjv OTOLV 7rav[ ......... ] 

About 7 lines lost. 

TO 7ri{3[X]r)0i> crr}fjiiov ao~iv[s o de 

s r] /JLTJ e7rt5eiay ra opy[ava Kara] 
TOV vofJLOv j] fjirj 7rapao-\(>v eif Trapao-fypayKrfJLOv /3ou] 
Xo/JLevov cr(f)pa"yio-ao-6cu rj JJLTJ a7r[o]8i[a$ TTJV CTTL] 
fiXrjQeicrav a(f)payLda aTTOTiveTco TOLS e\ovo~L [TTJV] 
10 [a)]vr)v oaov av Trapa^prjfjLa TO fiXafios 8iaTifJLr]o-a)[o-]i 
[ocrja 8 av oi yewpyoi TrpOTpvyrjaavTes oivo7roir)o-a)[o-i]v 
[ ........ ]coa-av TOV oivov CTTL TCOV Xrjvcov rj en [TCDV] 

[ ........ ] Kat OTav TO TrpcoTOV K0fia irapay[. . . .] 

[ ...... ]vTai ev Trfri] TroXet rj KcofMrji ev rji Ka[o~T]o[i] 

a7roypa[<f)]eo-0a>o-av oi ytwpyoL avOj]ij[e\po[v rj] 

v[cr]Tpaiai Kai 7TL8lKVVTCOO~aV TOV OLVOV [Kat] 


[TO]V afjL7T\a)v[a} [ov] TrpofTpvyrjcrav 


[o 8 }\cov Trjv covrj[v] OTO.V TO TrXrjOos TOV [ ...... ] Col. 27. 

About 7 lines lost. 
[ ..................... ]v TTJS 

[KOLI <r(f)pa}ytoiafjL]yos [TTJ?] (rvyypa(j)rjs r[o avriypa] 

v TTJI o-vyypa(f)r)i TOV opKOV TOV $a[(Ti\iKov] 
irav TO. yi>rjfj.a KaTaK^coptK[vaL ev 
/cat ra 7rpooivo7roirj6[VT] 

topiKevai /cat /j.rj0v vv[o(r] 10 

(f>i<r0ai jjLrjde /caraTr/ooteer^at TTJV 8 Tpa[v] 
[<r](f)p[a}'yi(raiJLi>ov TOV yewpyov ^ra> o ot/coi/o[/xoy] 
rj o Trap avTov truvaTrecrraAftet/oy -)(ipoy{pa(f)r)} 
[crjara) [8]c o yfcopyo? TOV (Sao-iXiKov opK[o}v [7r]av 
TO yevrjfjia. aTroSeSei^cvat /cat ra 7rpooiv[o] 15 

7r[o]irj0VTa 7t[a]vTa a.7royypa(f)0ai /cat TTJV 

a7TOfJLOlp[av] TfJV 7T7T . . . fj[]vT)V [8]lKOLlCi)S 

avayc[ypa}<f)T)Kvai ra 8c avT[iypa}d)a avy 

aa^payia'Ta. Col. 28. 

About 7 lines lost. 
roty] \ovai TTJV co[vijv] 

[ai/ 8 avrltXeyaxrtv cos TrXtov rj e\a[o~o-ov] 


[yi]l>TCU 7riKplVTCO O OlKOVOfJLO? KCLl O [dVTl] 

ypafav? Kat KaOon av 7riKpi0rjt o- 

o 8e TeXcovrjs dv Trpos riva TCOV [yco]p 
10 y&v LLT) o-vyypa\lfr)Tai (3ovXo[jLi>ov [fJLTj 
[a]vTcoi TOVTCOV rj irpa^is 

[01] & o OLKOVOIJLO$ 77 o avriypafavs (rwyy{p}a\lsa 
[o-0}a)(rav TT/OO? rov yewpyov KCLI KOfj.icrafjLvo[i] 
[rr]}v yL[v]o^JLvqv aTro/jLoipav et? TO (3a(TL\[iKov] 
i5[KaT]axa)pi[cr]aTa)<raj> rots 5e eyova-Lv rrf^v] 
[a>i>]rjv TTJV TifJLrjv fJLTj v7roXoyiTO)[o-av] 


[c]av 8e TOIS areAecrt ra VTroreXr] yvrj{^.a]ra 

Col. 29. [ ....... J^|^ 4 j ^y QVTOL TWV aT[\a)V 

About 7 lines lost. 
[ ...... 01 TrapaSeurovs KK]Tr)fJLevoi ai 

[aOuxrav 7r]poy T[OV] TTJV [co]vr}v TrpiafJLevfav /cat] 
[TOV VTTO] TOV OLKO[V}OIJLOV KCLI Tov avT[iypa(f)a)?} 

5 [Ka]Oe(TTrjKOTa ev TCOL TOTTCOL <f)paov[TS TO re] 

OLVTWV ovofiLa /cat ev rji Kcojjirji OVCTLV /cat Trfotrou rt/ia)f] 

rat TTJV Trpocrodov rr/v V TCOL 7ra/oa[5et<7ft>t /cat eav] 
IJLV evdoKTjL o TcXcovrj? o~vyypa(f)7]i> TT[. . .] 
aurco[t] SnrXrjv o-(f)pa-yto-fJLvrjv Ka6air[p ev] ra>[t] 


TT/oacro-era) o ot/co^o/Ltoy 
[a]v 8e a[v]TiXyTji irpos 


[ran Trj]v ayvrjv f^ovrt yX[a]ftftv TOV KOLDTTOV p [5 av] 

[7rtj3a]XXr)i a.7ro8i8oTO) airo TOV /z7roAa>/4*] 

[vov] KaO rjfj.pav OTO.V 8e KOfJLto"rjTai o y{c}ci>py{o}? 15 

[o]v ert/XarO TO 7T\tOV OTO) TOV TTTJV 
[to]vr^V\ )(OVTOf TfJV $ KTr)V CLTToSoTCi) O yt 

7rpa0vr[os rj Tt]fJLr)(ri9 fJ.rj Af7r[Jo-7;t 7T/3a^ar[o)] 

O OlKOVOfJ^Of ttTTjO TOV TTV (i)vrV ojATO9 KGLl . . 2O 

[ .............. t 

[ .............. X ............... 3 Col. 30. 

About 7 lines lost. 

( ....................... M .......... ] 

[. .]TO[ ................ jay cv a\\ou? [ ..... tav ot\ 

fJLTjTf avTOL Trap[a}yev(i)VTaL fis Tfjv (>(vrjv 
T aXXoi Trap avTwv ot Trpay/xareufo-o/zei/o*] 

K[v]pic0$ /ca<rra <r)a(K>ra TOV VQU.QV rj 

(TriKcoXvo'coo'L TOV? ytwpyovs 7rayy[\XovTa?] 

KCLI TrapaKaXovvTas KCU (rvvrtXovifjas Kara] 

TOV \v]ofjLov e^fcrro) Tots ycotpyoi? [cof y]eypa 

Trrfat] Trapovrwv TOVTCOV (rvvT\X(r]a.i cva[v] 10 

TIO\V T\OV Trapa TOV oiKovofjiov KCLI TOV [a]vTiy[pa] 

(f>(i>9 0-VVa7TCTTaXfJLVOV Ka(TTa 7TOICIV KOU iv[ai] 

Kara TOVTO afajuovs TrapayfvofJLfvov o{c] 

[TOV] 8iotKovvTos TJ)V (avrjv 8rjXovr(O(rav [TO yfvif\ 

KO.I] TTJV a.7ro8iiv 7roti(T0(t)<rav Trod pa% p[r)} 15 

0)9 U7T6/0 KO.(TT(i)V 8t(i)lKrjKa(TlV O 

TOV oiKOvofjiov Ktti TOV avTtypa(f)Ci)9 



Tf 8oT(oo-av TOV re yez^/xaroy /cat TTJS OLTTO 
fjLOipa[s] TOV \oyov Kara yewpyov 


OL 8e yecopyoi r[r)]v yLVO^vr^v a.7rofji0i[p]av [r]ou 

Col. 31. About 7 lines lost. 

Plate V. [ .................. airo^JLOLpav ty [TO onroo'oyj} 

ov [ ............... a7r<m]j/er&> TO[LS TTJV 

e^ovcri TTjy evo<f)iXov[JLi>r)s avTOif aTrfo/iot/aay 

TlfJLTjV fJL fJiV TTjL A.lfivf]l KO.L TCOl CatT[rjL KO.I 

5 woXiTrjt KCU Upoo-ayn-iTrji KOLL A0pifiiT[r)i KCU 

\ai8i KOLL AeXra TOV fie TOV X [^ .] 
ev 5e ran (LeftevvvTr}L Kai BovcrLpiTrjL [KO.L M.v8rj] 
(ricoi KOLL Aeo^roTToAfr^i Kat C0pa>iT[r)i /cajt <&ap 
(3aiT[i\Trji KOLL TTJL ApafliaL KCLL Bof^acrTfiTJ^i /cat 

10 Bou/3[acr]TGH KCLL TaviTrji /cat Me/x0tr[r;t K]OLL 
/cat A.TjT07ro\LTr)L KOLL E/?/i07roAtr?7t /ca[t O^j 
r?;t [/c]at KffOTroAtr^t /cat r^t XifJLvrji [/cajt H/oa/c[Ao] 
7roAirr;t /cat A(f)po8LT07roALTrjL h <T 
[c]v 5e r[^]t Gr7/3at5t h i<T7rpaaT(o [5]e. o [ot 

15 /Ltoy ra[y] rt/xay 7ra/oa rcoz^ yccopycov K[OL]L /c[a]ra 

cty ro /3a<TtAt/c[oV r?;y 

[8 o 01] 
/c[a]rao-r[r;]o-ara) e^ e/ca[cr]r[?7t] /cw 

e wv av KOfJLL[rjTaL OLTTO 


20 (T9atcrxa torw ro)[t 

Col. 32. About 7 lines lost. 



r[on a]rroo'o\icoi, KCU [....] 
pov CTTCO 8c o Kp[a]fj.o9 Kpafj,ia Q-Ttyva [....] 
7rovfj.i>a iKava TCOI oivcoi TCOI crvva[yofJLifcoi K 

o & otKOVOfJLO? KOU o avTtypa<f)v? 7rpo[Tpov rj] 
rpvyav TOVS yeaipyovs fj.7rpocr0v [rjfJLpais .] 

rot? ytwpyoLS Tt/jLrjv TOU [Kpa]fjLov o[v] 
KaoTTOi> TrapcLaryeLv cif rrjif aTrop[oLpa]v raf^v] 

yeifrjfJLdTcov rrjv (rvvTa^O^Krav] VTTO 10 

TOV 7TL rr)f StOLKfja-ecof reray^fvov] KCU 8{i] 
aypa\j/aTco rrjv TI\LI}V <roiy> 8ia rrj? 
[C] 7 / 5 " T7 7 ? /focrtAi/cr/y TTJ? ev TCOI vofjic 
[o] Sc y[d)py]o5 Xaficov rrjv 
[paljJLOV ap[t]crrov [c]aj/ 8c prj 8o0r]i avrcoi [rj\ r[t]/JiTj 15 

ro/x, [fJLv] Kepafjiov Trapf^erco /co/Ai^ecr^a) 5e 
airo [rrjs] aTroij[oipa.s} rjs 8et avrov [a]jro8ovvai 

o T; 
OLVOV T[OV] x [fi6 ................ rrfy 

About 7 lines lost. Col. 33. 


ocroy 8 av /x[ ......... ] 7rfO"/<O7reir[a) o ot/co^o/Ltoy /cat] 

a^v] r[ov} rrjv covrjv Siot^ovvra KOLL T\OV 
KCU TOV Tra/oear^Acora [vw avTOV TTCO] 

\ITCO fJLTOL TOVTWV 8l8oVf TOIS [ ....... ")(J)o}vOV 

i/ COL SiopOcocrovTat KCLI Trpacrcrcov ray [-nftay ....... J 

D 2 


TCO fif rov Trjf covrjy \oyov inrep TO>[V 
TTTJV (ovrjv 

01 5e (3ao-iXiKOi y/oa/i/iareiy aTroy/ja-^arjaxrai/ [rots] TTJV 
10 covrjv TrpiafjLevois a(f) rjs av rjfjiepas TO e[K#e]/aa 7ro[ir](Ta)v} 
rat cv rjfjLepais i oaoi afjLTrtXtove? rj [Tr]apa8e[i(roi ev ] 
KaarwL voptoi i(Tiv KCLI TG>V apovpcov T[O] ir\rj\6os KCU o] 

CTOL afJL7T\(t)Vf 7) TTapadfKTOl TWV fJL ^)[o/OoA]oy[it OVT(OV\ 

VTr[o]T\ts rjcrav is ra tepa irpo TOV K[O\L 

5[e]ai/ 8e fjirj wiroypwfyuxriv r) /IT; dtKaiws 0a[fi/]a)[v]ra[t airo] 
[^eypa^ijKoref SiKrji viKT]OevTs aTTOTiveT(oa[av T]OIS 
T[TI\V toviqv TrpiajJLfvois KaO e/ca<rroj> a>v av \y)(0(a(cri] h ' 

oaoi 8e TCOV Ke[KT]r)fjLv[cov afjCpreXcoisa^s rj] TrapaSetcrovs 
20 T&V ev rr)[i (j)opoX]o'/tai ovr[(*>v &vv er]c[A]oi>v eis ra tc[ 
Kr[rjv irpo] TOV KO[L 

Col. 34. [TOIS Trjv cwrjv 

About 5 lines lost. 

[ot de TTpiaiJLevoi Trjv (DVJ]v -yyvov$ /carao-ri/j 
[(rovcri TW <j)tK]oo-Tcov a(j) [77$- av rjfjiepas ay]opao-(oo-[iv} 
V r)jjLpa[is] X ray 5e Ka7[aypa(f)as 7roirj](rovTai 
5 TCOV xprj/jLaTcov airo Atou eooy [ ........ /carja prjva TO 

d av Xr)(f)0r)i Trap avTcov otv[os eis TO /3ao-t]AtAcot> VTTO 
Xoyio-0rjo-Tai 77 TifJLrj is ray [yivofJLeva? avatyopas 


10 oTav 8e 7ravTs ot e* rr;y cav[rjf K]ap7ro[t T 




KCU TOVS fiToxovs avTov Kdi T[O}V ai^Tiypafyea 8\ia] 
\oyta-acrdo) irpos TOV TTJV (DVTJV [f\o]vr[a /cat TOVS] ftro 
%ovs KOLI *av fiV 7riyvr]fJLa 7r[pt}r)i [7Ti5tay/>]a>^a 

TO) TOM T apXCWrjL KCLt TOIS fJLf[T]o[xOl\S T[O TOV] 7Tl 

Kara rrjv a>j/r?v %rjv iri 
8ia rrjf (Sa<ri\iKijs rpa7T^rjf cav 8 
ytvqrai irpacrcrtTdi) irapa TOV ap^covov *c[ai] rwv 
fj[f]TO\ca[v] KGLI TCOV tyyvwv Trap K(HrTov r[o] 
rrjv 8e [7r]pai[v] 7roi([i}(T0ci) ev r[a)t ^o]/Ltcva>t evtavrwi 

About 8 lines lost. 


ai>] /LIT; a?ro5a)t T 


rai TOV 


About 6 lines lost. 


L/cy Aaiaiov 


a7r]oypa(f)tv ZKCLO-TOV ov VOIJLOV 
TO r]e irXijdos TWV apovpwv TT)? 
\o[v KCU] 7rap[a8]io-(t)v KOLI ra K TOVTWV 
KO[TO] yt(t>p{yo}v airo TOV 


Col. 35. 

Col. 36. 
Plate VI. 


Trf^v i\pav y[rjv] Kai ravra e/c TOLVTIJS 

LVOL [rj] Xoiirrj [. . . .}rj e TTJS Set TJ)V CKTTJV 

10 rr?t [<J>t]Aa[5eA0&H K\ai T[O]VTCOV 
roi[f 7r]a[pa CaTVpo] 

8e K.OLL rfoujy t^\r)po]v^ovy TOV? c^oi/ray (rouy) 
7; 7rapa[Si(r}ov{$ e]v TOI? K\rjpoif ois ei\r)(f)ao-i Trapa T[O]V (3a 
(TiAecBy Kai rfoujy AoiTrouy iravras TOVS KKrrjfjLvovs 

15 afjLTreXowas rj 7rapadei(rov$ rj cv Scopeais e^ovray rj ye 


TOV aTToypafaiv TO re 7rA[^]^os' TTJS yrjf Kac ra ye 


ifTtjfjLaTa KCLI 5i5of[a]i r[w]v yevr)[ij]aLTa>v KTTJV 
[Apcr]ivorji 4>[t]Aa5[eA]0a)i ct[s] T[TJV] Ovcriav KO[I] 

Col. 37. About 7 lines lost. 


VII. . .<ELV 8e ............. 

[/3a<jiAe]i;y nroAe/^aioy [TOLS crr/jjar^yoty /cat TOL[S 

[KO]L TOIS Tjytfjioo-i KCU TO[I]S vofiap^aif KOLI roty To[irapyais KCLI TO]LS 
[oiK\ovoiJiOis Kai TOIS avTiypafavcn, KCU TOLS ^3a<jtA[iKOiy y/>a/x/xa]rei;<ri 
5 [/cjai roif AifSvapxats /cat roty ap^L(f)vXaKLTa[is iracn ^a]i/>eii/ 

Tai>Ti"ypa(j)a TOV Tr/ooyf/oa/i/Ltaroy /ca$ o 5ei 
t)i ^iXa8eX(j>coi e7r[tfteAey out/ V(JLI]V yivt 
[cr0]a> OTTWS av yivrfrau Kara raura 

io[ocroi e]^ou(Tii/ a/LtTreAcovay 17 7rapa8ei(rov$ TpoTrcoi O>IT[IVIOV\V 


[5t5o]raxrai> Travrey roty Trapa CaTVpov 7rpayfJLaT[vofJLevoi?] 

TO]I$ Trapa Atovvo-odcopov reray/xej/cuy eyAoytttrraty /cara] 
\t[i]poypa<l)ia$ 77 aimu T; oi SLOLKOVVTZS rj [oc ytcopyov] 


[i/]re? TCC K[T]r)fjLa.Ta avr&v CCTTO Lirj 

TO T TrA^flo]? TOW ytv-qnaTtoV KCLI is iroiov ipoi> [e5]t6\> 15 

[0-]aj/ TT;J/ yLvop.evr)v (KTTJV KCLI iroarov TOV vtavrov cocrau 

[T]CDS 8c KOLI 01 ipif K TTOiov KTrjfjLCLTOS /cacrroy 

ic[a]t TTQVQV OLVOV rj apyvp[i]ov TOV eviavrov o/xoitwy e 

i /8ao-iAtAf[oi -ypa]fjifjLaTif [K]EU gi [ ] 

.] TOVT[Q)V xfapoYpafyi^s ] 20 


a fV 

'a TOty (irapa} 


About 5 lines lost. 


T]J]V ap[T]a(B[r)v 

[rj TOV 5e 

Tf]v TpLaKO^ra^oLVLK\ov KaOapov 
8 KVTJKOV Ka6a[pov fis oX]fj.ov 
a = KoXvKivOivov Tr]v apTa$r)v f- 


6\t8o}vat KaOapov 

ecu/ 6\] fj.rj fiovXrjTai o 
is oXfJiov 7rapa}jLTpiT(0 awo TT^f] aXco KaOapa? 

ft? oXfJLov TOV /utej/ o"f]o-afjLov Tcuy KOTOV ap 

TOV KpOTQ)i>os TO (.CTOV T7/9 [5e KvqK.]ov ap rj 

Col. 38. 
Plate I. 


Col. 39. 





Xa/jifBaveTQ)(rav 8e Trapa TCO[V 
tf TOLS 8vo 8pa%fjias r9 Xo 
15 CCTTO TOV crrjo-afjiov Kat TTJV H a [TOU K]pOT(ovo9 
(rrjo~afjLov Kat KpoTcova rt/zr?? r[rjs cv] ran 
8iaypafjLfj,aTt yey/oa/x/xei/T/y apyvptov 
8e jii 

8e prjOevi e^ovcriav \ra)(rav 01 


Col. 40. About 5 lines lost. 

Plateix - [ ......................... TOV av] 

7rap[a TOV Kco^a]p[^]ov K[CU airo] 

Trap Ka(TT[ov] ycu>[pyov Xa(3o]v fav 8c fJLrj Saxri 
5 TO a7rocr(f)payto-fJLa fJLrj 7rpoi(r0a) o K&fJLapxrjs 

K Trjf KCOfJLTJf 1 de fir) aiTOTLVT(O 

i? TO fiao-LXiKov \- 'A Kat o TI av rj cwrj 8ta Tav 
Ta KaTafiXafiij 7rv[T\air\ovv 

i 8e TO eXat[ov] ev Trjt ^copai (TOV [fJL\ev) 


10 o-rjaanivov Kat ro(u) KV[TJ]KIVOV Trpo? %aXKOv *cai 



TOfJL fiTprjTrjv H X rrjv o 

8e K[at] TTJL 

Kai TOV Kiicifoy] TT\V bf 

1 5 TOU a-qa[a^JLLv[o}v TOfJL ^[Tpr^T^v I- firj (/cat TOV) 


fJL[T]pr)Trjv [h] fJLrj) Kat Trape ovo~tv 



ti[ia xco]paf fv [7r]a<rai$ rat? iro\(riv [KCU Ko> 

[ ..... ] (T . fj[. . fJL\T[p}OLf TOlf ^Ta! L (rdl(riv] V7TO 

[TOV OLKOVOIJLOV KOLI TOV av]Ttypa(f)Ci>[f] *o 

About 5 lines lost. Col. 41. 

...... ra (rvvrcay^va ran 


(nro8iaTc0(rai> 8f TOV anropov TCOI SIOIKOVVTI 

rrjv cwrjv <5t)a TOV OIKOVOJJLOV KO.I TOV a 

tav 8e y(t)fJLTprj(ravT? /LIT; vpa)(rtv TO 

ro)i/ apovpwv KaT<nrapiJLevov aTTOTiveTaxrav 

o T i>OfJLapx[r)]s KCU o Towap^rjf /cat o OIKOVO/JLO? 

KO.I o avTiypafav? eAcaoro? TO>V O[LTL(OV ei? 

TO fiacriXiKOv 7* @ KCLI TOLS TTJV wvrjv 


TOV o~ijcrap]ov o e}8i Xaftetv O.VTOV? TTJS ap H /8 

TOV 8e Ac/)ora>[vop] Trjf ap h a KCLI 7Tfyvrjfj.a 

TOV fXaiov KO[I\ TOV KiKioy io~7rpaaTa) 8e Trap av 

TWV 7Tl Trjf 8lo[l}Krj(Ta)S TtTtyfJitVOS ^0) opa 

o 8e otKOVOfJLOf [irp}oTpov rj TTJV 

TOV a{ir\ipeo-0a.i TO o-Tjaafjiov KCLI TOV KpoTwva 15 


rj TOTrapxrjt ct[s] TOV (ndo^pov TOV fj.v 

apov]paf] H 8 TOV 8e /c/3OT[a)Vo[yl rr;? apov 



\pa$ H] /3 /c[o]/t[f]{o-aa) 5c awo TTJ? aAa> avri rou 

On the verso of Col. 41, tb be read after line 13. 

r T f T 

20 [ ] 

ayopa[<ras KO.I] 

ois irpoo-rfejraKTai ei<nrpaas Trap aira)i' 
[o ]TTI TTJ[S] SioiKrjo-eco 
25 a7ro5oT[co] ets ous efiet rojuous 

T[O] (TTj[o-]afAOi' Kat Toy Kporowa 

Col. 42. About 5 lines lost. 

[ ]v 7ra/oz[ 

)1/77]^ ayopacra[z/ra 7re/Di r]?;? 
[cop]a rjt, crvvayeiv T[O] (rrjoidlfJLOv /cat TOV 

KCU, K.vr}K.ov 7rayy\XeT(oa-av 

5 Oi ftt/ yecopyot ran vo^,ap^r)L KOLL TCOL roirap^qi 
ov 8e fjirj L<ri vonapyai rj TOTrap^ai TCOL OLKO 
vofjLWi OVTOL 8e 7rapaKa\iTCoo-av TOV TTJV 
(ovrf\y] e^oi/To. o 8e rrjv wvrjv SIOIKCOV 
6(t>v fjiera TOVTCOV TTL ray apovpas 

01 $ [Aaoi] /cat 01 Xonrot ytwpyoi. 
ra a[vTQ)}v yevrjfjaTa eKacrra Kara yevos 
TrpOT[fpo}v KOfufatv KO.I crvyypa<f)r}v 
Trpof T[OV] TTJV wvrjv eyovra rrjy 
15 8nrX[rjv f^(f)pa-/io-iJLvrjv [y}pa<j)Ta)(7av 8e 01 


\rtOl [TO]V (TTTOpOV 


Kar[a] ytvos fi0 opKOv *[ai] 7ro[<ro](j/> fKacrTos [TI] 

fjLaTa[t] KCLI (r<f>payi[cr0co]<rav TTJV crvvypa^v 

trvv'jr[t<r}(f)pa-/i^(T[d]ci) $ /cat o [ir]aLpa rov vofiap 

[\ov {rvv]aTro<rraXif rj TO7r[ap-^ov] 20 

About 5 lines lost. Col. 43. 

/cat K [TOU ..... }vroy a{ ...... ] 

[tvavTio}v rwv yewpywv [<> opa] 

8c o vo/jLapxrj? rj o 7rpo(rrr)Ka)f TOV vo 
TCOV ap[o]vpct)v TOV (nropov Kara ytwpyov irpo 
repov 77 (rvvKOfJLieo'0ai TOV Kapirov rjfjLfpais 6^*7 5 

Kovra tav 8e firj Scot rj /LIT; 7rapacr\rjTaL TOV? 
(nrapKOTa$ TO 7rAr]6os TO diaypafav 

Teat Trjv covrjv irpia^vcoi KOLL 7ri 

ra y-/pafj.iJLva avTOf Se Trpacro-eTCi) [ir}ap(t 
[T]COV "/(copycov TCOV ijTrcidrjKOTcov I0 

[or]ot 8 aTeXfis eicriv Kara TTJV \(opav rj cv o\copa]i 

[rj] fv avvra^i ^oucrt(j/) /ca)/Ltay /cai yr^v Tra^/a/ne] 

[T]piTO)crav TTOLV TO ytvofjievov CLVTOIS (rrj(7a[fjio}v 

[K}OLI TOV KpoTcova KOLL ra Xonra <f)opTia ra crv{yKv 

p[o]vra if TTJV \aiKrjv VTroXnrofJLevoi ets (rniep^a 15 

TO LKO.VOV TlfJLrjV KOfJuofJLVOl TTpOf \aXK[o]v 
TOV fJLV <ri/[<7]a/LtOU Trjf ap |- $ TOV $ 

TYJV ap H y Trfe} 5c KV[T)}K ov TTJV ap h a 

E 2 


i\ TTO[V TO (r]Tjara[fjL<ov 
On the verso of Col. 43, to be read after line 2. 
20 TOV [6]c ftiaypafavTos <nrapr)[vai (njcrajujoi; 

[]y aAAous vopovs Tr[oir)<rov] 

o oiK[o}vop.os Kai o [a\VTiypa 
KOI T[O] o-T/aa/xoy KCU Toy KpoTava Tia[pa] 


25 8ora> 8[e o ro]/* 
Col. 44. About 5 lines lost. 


oerat e^ co)eai KW^JLOLL icrii> tv rauraty 

5 TrapaOecrOaMTav 5e ey eKao-rcoi 
KCU crrjcrafJLov Kai Kporcova KCU KvrjKov rrjv IKO, 

TOVS 5e eXaiovpyovs rovf ev c/cao-rcot 

10 aAXov vofjiov fJLTa7ropVcr0a[t a}v 8e rives 
fjLTX0co<Tiv aycoyt/JLOi ecrr[ft)o-a]j/ TCOI re 8101 
KOVVTI rrjv wvrjv Kai TCOI otKo[vo]fJLO)i Kai TCOL 

o-a[i'}y 8e Tovf [X]aiovpyov? 

fav e TLS cicos VTroerjTai rj ein 

]f avTCDL fjir) avayayrj aTTOTiveTO) 
[K\a(TTOV [\]aiovpyov \- Y Kai o eXaiovpyos aywyi 

fJLOf [(TT(D] 


About 5 lines lost. Col. 46. 

I ---- ] TO [ .......................... ] 

[T]OV (Xatov /ze/>tera> [....] /cat air[o TOV] ye 

TOV (TTwAou/Mevou) eXaiov TO[I]S X[a]iovpyots 


TOV fJLfTprjTov TOV dwSeKa^ov I- (y) TOVTOV Sf 

Aa/i/3ai/ra> o /xt/ eXaiovpyos KCU 01 KOTTCIS h (j8) 

OL TTfif wvrjv r)yopaKOTf K <a> 

8f o oiKovofJLOs rj o Trap avTOv 


ft?; a7ro8a)i Toif \aiovpyoi$ TO Ka.Tpyov rj TO 

/Ufl(77)pt07ZI>O2> aVTOlf dTTO .Tfjf 7rpa.(T(i)S CLTTOTt 

i>T(o if fj,v TO j8a[cnAt]Acoj/ H T /cat rot? eXatovpyoiy 10 

ro/x ^.icrQov KCU o TL a[v rj (o}i>r) 8ia TOVTOVS /cara/3Aa 

tav $ TO. eXaiovpy{i]a prj Karaur 770-0) j>rat KaOo 

TL ytypoLTTTCLL rj TO. <f)op[T]ia TO. iKOivov fJLrj Trapo. 

[(fyavrai KOLL 5ta ravra [rj] wvrj Acara/3Aa/3r;i a-jroTi 15 

[i/Jra> o re OLKovofJios *[at o] avTiypafavs Trjv 

[av] rr;t/ y^vo^vrjv [KO.L] TOIS TTJV wvr) 

[TO /3Aja/8[oy 8i}rrXovv 

[XOprjyetTtocrav] Se [o oi]/coi/o/xoy /c[a]t [o a]Krty[/) 1 J a0e[uy] 

[ei/ CAcaorwt /)y]acr[r]r;/o[ta)i TT;I; /caracr/cei;?;!/] 20 

About 5 lines lost. Col. 46. 
W ] 


cis r[o Ka\Tpyov KOLT(LW}V 
ra/8Aa7rra>y TTJV covrjv 


av 8e firj XP r J'yi L V KaTafiXa\lfr)i Trjv avrjv Kpiveo- 



Xr)(f)0r)i aTroretfera) apyvpiov * /8 /cat ro /3Aa 

ot de Trjv wvr)v \ovTS Kai o avTiypafav? o 
Ta[0]tf VTTO TOV oiKovofJiOv Kai TOV avTi"ypa(f)e[ci)]? KV 

10 pL[cv<rov](rt,v T(DV (yewpywv} TTOLVTWV TWV ev T[WL v]ofjLO)i 
K[OLI T(D\V pyacrTf]piwv Kai rryy Acaracr/ceu^y [Kai 7r]a 
pa[(T<f)pa}yicr0a>(Tav ra opyava TOV apyov TO[V xpo]vo[v] 

e TOVS eXaiovpyovy [Ka0] r) 


J 5 t[o-0](>o-av 8f. fjirj eXao-crov TTJV rjfjiepav TOV [fj]ev 
(rrj[o-]afjLOV /car eKacrroi/ oXfJLov a/jrajSr/y (Kai TO[I}TOV) 
TO[V] 8e KPOT(DV[OS} ap 8 TTJS 8e KvrjKov ap 
aTr[o]8i8oTQ)a"a[v 8e] T[ ..... ] TOV fjifv crTy^ra/xou 
[TCOV] 8 [ap 8pa%fjLas . TOV 8e KpoT\wvos TWV [.] ap 

20 h 8 [Trj]f 8e KvrjK[ov TCOV . ap 

Col. 47. About 5 lines lost. 

[crvvT\aiv 8e 7rpo[s TOVS X]aiovpyov[s 
TOV eXaiov JJLTJ 7roet<r#a> fj,rjT o oiKovofj.os /zr;re o Trpa 
y/xareuo/xevo? TTJV COVTJV Trapevpecrei fj.rj8fJLiai 
fj.rj8e ra opyava ra cv TOIS epyao-Trjptois TOV apyov 
5 TOV )(j)ovov ao~<f)payio~Ta a7roXi7TT(t)O~av eav 8e o~vv 


Trpof Tivas TCDV cXcuovpycov rj ao-<f)payi<rTa 
TO. opyava a.7ro\nr(t)(r]ii> a7ror(e)tj/ra>[(r]ai/ i 
TO f3a<riXiKoi> cAcacrro? ra>i> O.ITLWV apyvptov * a 


KOLI av rt rj cwrj y8[ia]v -jroirj 

o 8e wapa rov OIKOVOIJLOV K]CU TOV avriypafaws KaOfd I0 

rrjKQ)? ava.ypatyaa'Oto r[a oli/o/xara rwv Kairr)\a)v 

TO)V !/ fKCKTTrjl 7TO\l o[j/TJft)J/ Kdi TCW 


/cat (TVvra^aa'TW 7rpo[s d]vTOVS /nera TOJV rrjv 
Trpayp.arvoiJLV(DV 7r[ocro}v &t cXatov KOU KIKL 

K.a.6 rifj.(pav 

TS 7T(o\fiv fv AXc^airSpfiai 5e crvvTacrcrca'OuHTa.v 15 

7r/ooy rouy ira\ivTrpaT{o}vvTas KCU wyypatyao'Owo'av 
[Trpos] Ka[(r]7[o]v crvi>ypa[<f>}rjv irpos pev TOVS tv rrji 
[Kara }irjva Trpo? 5e rojuy c[ 

About 5 lines lost. l - 48 - 

V[TTO ro]i> oiKovofiov [/cat TOV] 
6w ts TTJV 

oo~ov 8 av arvvypa'fytoVTa.i 01 KdTrrjXoi KCLI 01 fJLTafioXot 
oi V fKOurTrji KcofjLrjL 8ta6r)cr(r0ai eXaiov Kat KIKI 

o T OIKOVOS Kai o avriypa(j)Vf TrpoTtpov rj TOV fJLrjva 5 

TO 7rXrj6[os] cis Kao~TJ]v KWfJirjif tKao~Tov yvovs 
Kat iT(iTQ)<Tav T0t[s] KaTTTjXots KO.I TOtf /zera/SoAoty Kara 
KOU KOfJiit(rO(D(Tav ray rt/Ltay ea/ut 

1 rj firj t~tov(Tu>V TWV 7TVT 

KCU Kara/aera>o-aj/ (TTI TTJV [fta](riXiKiv 10 


av TO 8e avrjXcofjm TO is rrjv [7ra}paKOfJLL8rjv 
o\i}8oTcoo~av airo 

TTJV 8e (TWTa^iv rjv av Trotrjo-oiVTai Trpof [e]/ca<rroj/ CTTI 
i^rj]pvo-o-TCt)o-av irpOTtpov rj TOV p[rf\va ^TncrTTjvaL JJL 
15 Trpocrdev rjfjicpcu? 5c/ca /cat ypa.^ravTS e/crt^eroxrai/ 
TO vpio~KOv e(f) rjfJLCpas 8eKa ev re TTJL fjirjTpoTroXei KO.I 
i icai. TOV 

7th [ ]i OL 


Col. 49. t 7T\apa\anpa(v 

[ ..... 7r]Xeiovo[s ........................ ] 

About 4 lines lost. 

5 TO /3[ ..... ] /oya^[. . . . /^re o}Xfjiov? /c[ ......... ] 

IJirjTe i7ra)T[rj]pia jjirjTe aAAo firjBev TCOV TTJL p[ya(rtai] 

TOLVTrjl (TVyKVpOVTWV 7TapVp(Tl fJLTjdffJLiaL 

i 8e fjirj airoTivTto(rav i? fJLv TO ftao-L\iK.ov ^ 
KCLI Tots TTJV covrjv TrpiafjLevois TO /3Aa/3o? TT^vrairXovv 
10 Trap 01? 8e Trpovwap^i TOVTCOV n a7roypa.<f>ecrO<i)o~a.v Trpo? 



KCU TOV avTiypacos ev rjfjiepai? TpiaKOVTa KCLI TTI 
8iKi>VTQ)(rav TOVS re oXfi[o]vs /cat ra 

01 8e TT]V wvT)v e^ovrey KO[L o] Trapa TOV OIKOVO/JLOV 
15 /cat TOV avTiypafatos /iere[t/ey]/cara)craj/ ety ra 
ftao~iXiKa eXaiovpyia av 5[e TI]S 
TI KpOTCova rj KVTJKOV KaT[pya]ofj.vo? 


TO (rr](rafjitv[ov] r\ TO KVTJKIVOV TTJ TO 

OHTiviovv ro \aiov <Kai> KI^I] rj aXXoOep iroOtv a>vov 


avrov o (Sao-i\Vf 8ia-yva)o-Tai a.7roTivTO) $ rot? 20 


(TTpcr0a) i(T7rpa(ro'O'6a) & VTTO TOV OLKOVO^IOV KCU rov 

> avrov 

cir [ ................ /8oluAo/ii>oj/ [ ...... ] Col. so 

r[ ............. Trpay^jJLO.TvoiLt(v ..... ] 

rrjl ........ rou OIKOVOILO]V KOLI TOV a[vTiypa] 

e a 

About 3 lines lost. 


o) TOV 

ov neXXovcriv av-qXaxriv eAcaoroy (T^J/) Kara 

rjfj.pcov rpiwv T<DV re fyopnwv o-(6>re/)o-^a)o-ai/ 10 


rroi/o? /cara Xoyov 

ot 8e nayeipoi TO a~Tap K(tTa.yjpa(T0(iHTav KaO 7; 
(JLcpav [}vavrtov TOV TTTJV (XaiKrjv e^ovTOS 
avTO [8e] KaO OLVTO fj.rj8ei>i TrwActrwcrat/ 7rap[fv] 

iat [4.r)8 (rvvTrjKTa)o-av fj,rj8e a7r[o] 

o re aTToSofxcvos c[at o 
et 5e fj.rj O.TTOTIV^TV 



Kad CKO-VTOV coy av Trpir]Ta[i] 
T0)t T[TJ\V eXatKrjv Trpia/jLevcoi (tKao-Tiqv rjfjicpav) h v 

20 oi 8 \a[L\ovpyovvTs ev TOLS icpot? TOLS Kara Trfrv] 
-^copav airoypafyecrOwo-av Trpos TO/JL 7rpayfj.aTvofj[e}vov 
TTJV wvriv KOU irpos rov Trapa rov OIKWVOJJLOV KO[I] rov 
s irocra re \aiovpyia vwap^ei cv /cacrro)t 
KO[I] 7rocro[t] 

Col. 51. [/ecu i7ra)T]r)pia KOU 7rt8t[iaTa)o-av ra pyacrT}rftp}ia 
[KO.L rovf oAj/zouy K.OLI ra nr[coTr)pia Trapacrye}T(o 
[aav if Tralpao-^payia-fJLOv [ ] 

[ ........ jooerai/ 8e o rc[ ............... ] KCU 

5 [ ........ ] rov eAcuou K[ .............. }KO 

About 3 lines lost. 

crav ot 7Ti TCOV ipcw Teray/jLevoi is fjiev TO (Souri 


oo~ov av 8iarLfJi7jo'CovTat 
(tivrjv TrptafJievois TO fiXafios TrtvTairXovv OTOLV 

be fiovXco i/rat KaTtpya^ecrdai ev TOLS tepoi? TO 

ov TO o-rjaa.fjLLVOv 7rapaXafjL^ai>TCoa-aif T{r)}v 

irpayiJiaTevo^vov KOLL TOV Trapa TOV OIKOVOJJLOV 
15 TOV avTi'/pa(f)a}f Kai evavTiov TOVTCOV eXaiovp 

a^eo 0(a[(ra}v 8e ev 8LfJLr)vc0L oo~ov 
ei? TOV via[vTo]v avTjXcoOrjcre o~\6ai 


TO o\ /t]t/ttt TO avjj\i(TKO^vo[v AJa/Ltj8aj/era>0iaji/ irapa 

o 8 oiKoi'Ofj.0? KOLI o avTiypafav? TO ai>rjXd)fj[a} TO yivo 20 


fJLVOV tf tKOLCTTOV UpOV r[o]u <5>6 KIKlOf KCLl TOV \CtlOV 

a.7ro(TT\{\}T(i)(rav Trjy ypo[<^.f)v Trpof TO/JL fiaaiXea 
/cat TO>I fTTi Trj? dioucrjo-cas rcra 


vo]v t$ ra icpa pr)0vi TrwActi/ t $ firj &Tfp 25 

a-[6(i)crav TOV fXatov K\at 7rpo(ra7roTivT[(0crav TOV] Col. 62. 

l4cTprjTov H p KCLI TO]V irXtiovos /cat \[acro'ovos;} 
/c[ara \oyov} 

o 1 

}v 7Tt Trjf TT/jacrfecoy 

] TOV fJL H [ 

Two lines lost. 

/ ejri irpacrti 
Hrj\ovo~iov fJirjTf 

tav $ Tives avayoMTLv TOV T (Xaiov (rTfpt(rO(D(Ta.v /cat irpoo~ 10 
tLO'Trpao'a'tcrOwo'av TOV /xe H p /cat TOV TrXeiovo? /cat 
Xacrcrovos Kara Xoyov 

av & Tivef ty TTJV idiav yjpeiav ^CVIKOV eAatot/ /co/xt 

faxriv 01 fMv ^ AXe^avdpeia? ayovTts awoypa^fo-da) 

crav dv AXfav8ptat /cat /cara/SaAAercocrai/ </ca(r>rou /itcr H tj9 15 

/cat TO[I>] Aao-(roj/oy /car[a oov /cat 



TO reAoy 
01 5e K [Tit] XOVO-LOV ayoi/Tff KaTa(3aXXTO)[o-av] e/ti 


20 OL e oeuoz/rey v avpiai /ecu 

TO [reJAoy as ov av vofiov aya>[o"i r]o 

ea*> e r^cy iy TT;^ i8[iav] ^p^iav ayovTfs ra reAr; /LIT; /ca 


TafiaXXcocriv rj TO orv^oXov pr) K.OIJLI(}<JL><TIV TOV re eAatou 
25 o-TepeorOwaav Acai Trpoo-aTTOTivercocrav TOV pe H /) 00-01 8e ra>y epnro/ac 

ex OrjAoixriou fviKov eAaiov rj Cvpoy 7rapaKopu[a>]crii; s [AXje^arSfpjeiai' areXet? 

[T]OU 6/ 


ev T(OI voj.<i)i pa7rrat coo-aurcos e <cai TOU 

[. . .] KCU TO[U]TOU [(rvfj.(3o]\ov 
a?r ..... eay bf 

Col. 53. {[. ... fJi(]vov 

Plate XI. [ ..... fj.](vov (rvp.(3o\ov TO>[ ............. TOU eXcuou] 

e 01 %ovTs TTTJV covrjv TO 

5 \pv\0]v 60 Ka(TTCOl VO[J$a)l CL7rOTl0(T0ai O"rj 

\KOLI Kpo\T(ava 779 av rjij[pa? TJJV avrjv TrapaXa/Bcoaiv 
[ev rjfjCepaif y TOV crrfaa/JLOV TTJV ap h . TOV cr]r)o~a. 

]v TOV fJL H [. . KCU KpOTWVOS . KOLL K\lKlOf H l 

Two lines lost. 

] TlfJLrjs T/S[ ..... ] Tat auToty [. . . .}p[ ..... ] 



TO K L KCLl TOV <nj<TOflOl/ Kttt 


TTjy IO 





TOV pel/ o-rjcrafuvov TOV /tie (h Xafv] TOV & KI 


KiO? rou /ii h #c(a=) TOV 8c KvrjKivov TOV /it H (trjf) 

roi> 5c (77/o-a/iou TTyf ap I- rj TOV Se KpoTtovos 


TTJS ap \- 8 Trjs $ KVTJKOV h (a/") otroi/ 8 av 




TtoV V Td)i VOfJLCOL TOV \JJLt]v \aiOV TOV fJL TOV 1(3% 

/X^pi}? KepaiJiov h Xaf{v} TOV 8e KIKI[O$] \- KOL = 

\T[OV] 8c KvrjKivov h if]/ [TOV] 8c AcoXoAcu[i/]rt<Aco)ou I- ifi) 

tf\cu. v}rroXoyicr0r]crTai rj T[LfJLr)] TOIS ^ov(r[i] ray covas 

i[f T ] a? ava(f)opas ray yu>ojj{va}$ TJJV 8c T[ifj.]rjv TOJV <f)op 

T[IU>]V KOLI TO KCiTep-yov Kcu rfoj avrjXcofJLa 7r[poa]vr)Xto-K 

r[a> OJ OlKOVOfJLOf 



8 av yjptiav 


eXaiov orrjo-a/juvov rj KLKIOS fv AAe) 

em TIJ? 7r[/oao-ea)y . . . .] cJol. 54. 

^*a[ ................. }TOV fji \- firj) g[ ......... ] 

a-6[ ............... rj]fJuoXiv ray cXaio[ .......... ] 

o\ ................ ^taroy Xoyov r[ ........... ] 

[ ................. ]vo)v e[j/] T(a[i ............ ] 5 

Two lines lost. 



TOV eAaiov 
eav 8c fM7j 8co(riv TOV Xoyov [rj 

yo^oTes ety AXe^avSpeiav TTOLV TO cXaiov (77 eis TOVS yo) 

ov av /XT; 

10 (JJLOVS XTj(f)0a)crtv etorayovTes) TOV re eAatou 

KGLI 7rpoo-a7roTivTO)(rav (ety ro fiao~tXiKov > e/caaroy 

ljL/JLlO-0a)fJLVa)V T(W}V KCDfJLrjV 7* y 

0repf<ns is ro fiacriXinov *ai Kara 



K.O.L ai{Tiy}pa(l)if ev 
ov TOV [eK 2]i;/)tay 


Kat TlrjXovcricoi [TOV] eXat. 
ety TlrjXo[v(riov} K.CLL 
ra a7ro5o 

20 o 8e Ka[Ta]o'Ta0i? avTi[ypa]<f)evs Trjy wvqs VTTO TOV O[L]KOVO 
IJLOV 8iaXo"/L^o~0co 7r[pOf] TOV Tfjv covrjv eyovTO. K[a\Ta 
fjirjva evavTLOv TOV avTi[yp]a(f)a)s ypa0era> de ev TOIS Xoyot? 
ra re (fropTia oo~a KO.O-TO[V y]tvovs TraptiXrjcfiev KOLI oo~a 

[ri/xTjs rrjs fv rwi 8iay]pa/x/xari yeypa/i//i'7;y 
Col. 55. [KaTi]pyacrTcu /cat 7re[7ra)Ar;Ace ...... y&pis] TOV a<j)ai 

[peTov] TTJV re TtfJLfjv T(f>[v 7rapiXrjiJLiJLva)v] Trjv ev 
[TCOI] diaypanfiaTL yyp[aiJL/jLvr)v ......... o~]vv TOM 

[Kpa]fJLLd)L KCU TOIS Xot7roi[s avr)Xci)fjia(rL TOV [lev o-\qo-afjLov 
5 [Trjy] ap h a TOV 8e Kpo[T(0vos . TTJS 8e KV]TJKOV = 
[TOV 8e KoXoKWTtvov . TOV 8e e/c TOV Xivov (rTre/oynaroy .] 


[TOV 8c o"fjo-ap,ivov (Xaiov rutv . ap \- . TOV 8c KIKIO? TWV] 
[ap H]a TOV 8e KVTJK[IVOV} TO>V rj ap [h .] TOV 8 
C7r[\\]v\viov TCOV ap H a KO\OKVVTIVOV TQJV tft ap a 


Kai TO (rvvTTay}jLvov fjLpif<r0ai TOV eTriycvrjfjLaTOf 10 

To>t eXatovpycDi Kai T&I TIJV covrjv SIOIKOVVTI Kai o TI av ts 

01 8 fJLlO~00l TOlf 7TpayfJLaTVOIJiVOl? T7JV CtiVTJV 8l8o(T0(O 


o~av airo TOV fJLfjLpicrfJLvov (arro) TOV 

cv AX^^orftpeiai 8< TO re narcp-yov TOV (njaa^trov tAatov KOI TO TrpoiraiAjjrtKoi' 15 
Kat 01 jiio-0 


r; tov 

TTJV (a[vrjv] 01 <?rt) rour<oi,'$']> 

i \}aiov irapa T[LO-L]V 

Ka[p7r]ifj,ov r] t\aiovpyi(ov}a ^[rj]TiTCixraif if { ap}ovTOS TOV 20 

TJ [irapa T]OV 

7r[apa] TOV OLKOVO^JLOV </cai> TOV [avrCypafyeas c[av 8] 7rapaK\rj 

6[if o] Trapa TOV OLKOVOV j) TOV [av]Tiypa<f)(i)s fj^rj a]KO\ov0rjo-rji 
rj [fJiij] 7rapafJLivijL cof av rj rjTrj(Tif ytvr)Ta[i afroTivtT&o-av 
T[OIS] TJ\V (ovrfv TrpiafjLevoi? TIJV 8iaTtfj.rjo'iv [oo~o}v av 8iaTifj.rj 

(fir)) floret) 8e TOtf Trjv [wvtyv x ov<rt 2 5 

VTOf . rjfl\p(DV Col. 50. 


lew rma< 

ou of. 


09 81. 



on av 
.}(m 11 un 


sr. .1 <Aco>r. 

One line lost. 
[ ........ ] TV [ . .] 

TOV 8e fJLrj cvpovra [a] (f)rj fy)Tiv 

opKio~ai v lepwi rj fjirjv fjLTjdevof aXXov 
Tfjv tjiTrja'iv 7roLio~0at aXXa rwv irpocr 
10 ayyeXei/rcoz/ KOLL crvyKvpovTwv ts rrjv covrjv 

av 8e fJLrj ofJioo-fji av0r)}jipoi> 77 rrjt vo-rcpcucu airo 

TlVT(i) TCOL ;OpKtoi>Tl TO TlfJLrjfJLO, 0(TOV 

craro <7Tt> 7771; r]Trj(riv iroieicrOai 

OL 8e 7rpi.a.fjLvoi Trjv [(t)}vr)v tyyvovs Karacrr?; 

15 O~OVO~L TCo[v] (f)LKOO~TCDV KO.L $LOp0(dO~OVTOLl TO. [fJL\CV Xo 

yeiyAa[r]a KaO rjfJLepav [CJTTI TTJV TpaireQav Trj\v 
8 avafyoplav T\rjv irL$a\{\}ovo~av TOOL fjLrjvi tv T[COI ^] 
[TT/)O] Trjf 8i.xo[fJL}r)vta? 

' TOLS Xaiovpy[oL$ T]O yivo^vov 


8i8ovai airo TO[V t 
^ Acat fJLrj airo TOV a 


^" d 57 [EAJAIKHI 

PL XII. TTwXovfJiev T[rjv fXcuKrjv Trjv Kara] Trjy ywpav 

airo jJLrjvo? Top7rt[cuov TOV .... A.Ly]virTLwv 
5 M.o~opr) i? T[rj j3 Kara TO eK0e/xa] TO 

Three lines lost. 

]o[ei] r[o] r[eAo? TO]V [re o"t]}a{afjLov Ka]t TOV 
TOV io-tovTa ^povov TT/Dta/Ltei/ot? oaas 8 av apovpa? 



Xao~o~ovs (7ra/>a)5etG>/xej> KaT(o~Trapu.vas reap irpo 




avrois TO T\os a/ /3 h TOV o-^o-a/xou /cat h a rou 

ov 8 av vo^iov TO ir\ovaov TOV Trpoicrj 

rj KpOTava ov 
Tat TO T\oy TO airo TOV [o~]rja-a^,ov KCLI TOV Acf/3o]ro)j/o? ocrov 15 

8 av fJLrj 8o)fJLv iy TO [\\]i7rov o-fja-a/jLov K.O.I \aiov a(f> ov 
TO eiriyevriiLa TO icrov X[rj\^ov]Tai o<rov air[o T}OV (rrjcrafjuvov 
fXatov KO.I a,7ro TOV o"r)o~a\jJLOv} fty 8c TO KLK[L K]O\OKVVTIVOV 
eXatov KOU TO OLTTO TOV Xivo[v cr]7r[]/o/xaroy ^a^p-yao-a^cvot 
8ia TCOV oiKovofiMV fJLT[pr)}o-ofJLev a(f) ov [TO 7r}iyVY)iJLa TO 20 
io~ov Xr)\lsovTau oo~ov CLTTO [re] ro[i>] KIKIOS KO[L airo] TOV 


TCOI 8e 

ot Trjv covrjv f^ovr9 [/cat 7r]apacr[(J)pa}'/LOVVT[at} 

[ocrov 8 av % Kao~TOv VO^JJLOV cr^cra/xof rj [KpoTwva .......... }v Col. 68. 

[rj eXaiov o-rjaa/jLtvov r) KL}KL rj TO KO\OKVVTI(VOV ............ ] 

[ov irpa^ovTai ot 7rpiafjL}voi TTJV eXatKrjv ej; [. . . o"qo-a^.ov . .] 
[ ............ reAoy o]v0cv TO 8e (nr^pofjievov cr^tra/xoi/ /cat Kpo] 

[To>va v Trjt a<f)a>picriJLi>r]i] Tra^aX^erat o [ot/coi/o/ioy /cat XP r i7 r J^> 5 
[crt cty TO eXaiovpytov TO ev AX$;av8piai 7T(t>XovfJLi> 8e Trjv] 
[COVTJV Trpof \a\Kov /cat Xij^o/jLeda cty TOV crTaTijpa ofioXovf] 
[et/coo-t To-o~apas eav 8e TrXcia) rj pvais ey/Sr/t V7rap^i TO] 
irX[tov c]ty TO /3ao~tAt/c[oj/] 




Col. 69. 7r[ce)Aouftez/ T-TJV] eXaiKrjv r[r)is Kara TTJV] 

airo fJLrjvo? T]op7riaiov TOV [. . . . At] 

.(TOpr) e]t? L^g Acar[a TO K0fj,a] 
5 [ro KKLfj,vov } 7rape[ ........... ] 

Two lines lost. 

[ ...... ] apovpa? [ .................. TrXeiov . . wrap] 

et TO reAoy rov (r[rj(rafjLo]v KOLI TOV K/9or[a)^o? roiy rov] 
icriovTa yjpovov 7rp[i]afjii>oi? ocras 8 av apovpa? \acrcro[v?} 
a7ro8eL^a)fjLi' KaT(nrapfJivas TGOI> 

TO T arjcrafjiov K.OLL TOV KpOTcova TOV 
XetTrovTa Kai airo TOV Sodrja-o/jicvov crrja'afjiov 
/cat KpOTO)vof VTrap^et avToif TO reAoy aj fi 
apTafirj? Kai \- a TOV 

15 ^ ov 5 av vofjiov TO TrXeova^ov TOV TrpoKtjpv 
%0VTO? eto-ayoa/jicv rj (rr)o~afjiov rj KpOTcova ov 
Trpa^ovTai TO reAo? TO airo TOV o^cra/iou /cat TOV 
Kpo[T\a>vos OQ-QV [8] av fjirj dcofjiev et? TO 

o-r)o{a]iJLov Kai, eAatofz^] a(f) ov K.O.L ro eTTf/c^rjfjLa TO icrov 
20 Xrj[/jL]\lsovTai oo~o[v] awo TOV o~rjo~a^iv\ov eXaiov 

Kai [TOV] o-rjo~afjiov [ejts 1 8e TO KLKL TO KoX[oKv]v0ivov eXai 
ov K[ai T]O airo TOV [Ajt^ou o-TrepjjiaTOf K[. . /cjareyoya 
o-a[fjLvot 8ia] TW[V O]IKOVO/JM)V /jLTpr)[o~ofJi]v ov TO [TTL] 
-y[v7)fj.a TO IQ-OV Xrj]fjL\^ovTaL oo~ov airo r[e TOV KLKLOS Kai airo] 
25 r[ou KpoTwvof XajjL\(3avov 


iraKo\ov0[r)(rov(riv 01 rrjv a>v\r)v CoL 60. 



OO-QV 8 av e K[a(rTov vo/iou <rr)(r}aiJLov 
rj KpOTca[va ........... 17 cXat]ov 

[(r]rj(rapiv(ov rj KIKL rj TO KO\OKV]V 
[TLVOV ............. ov irpa^ov] 

[rat ot 7rpia^jLifOL rrjv \atKrjv 6^ ... err)} 


KOU KpOTwv tv Ttjt a0a)^fcr/xe 10 

vrji 7rapa\rjfji\lfTaL o ot/coi/o/xoy KO.L 
yoprfyr)<Tei. i? TO cXaiovpyiov TO cv A 

wvrjv Trpof \a\Kov KCU 

cis TOV crTaTrjpa ofioXovs /c5 eai/ 8e 15 

TrXeta) rj pvcri? //3^t V7rap^L TO eXaiov 

KOLl KLKL 19 TO /3a.(TlXlKOl> 


& M 

id M'AfA/^3 7 20 


8iaO(riv [ov] reAoy ovOtv 

o TOV Ca[iT7j}v a-/opao[a}s 

KO.I o"rjaa[^ov] is Trjv e[v] 

at 8ta0cr[tif ] ap T 25 

G 2 



[MENHC o-Tjo-afjLov] U 'E^ 
[/cat ev Trjt (KJX]puriJXVfft o Set, 
[eis TTJV V AX]av8piai 8ia 
5 [Oecriv ov] reAo? ovOe[v Trpa^erai o 

[Aifivrjv ayopacras] tt [. .] 
[TOV 8e Kpormva ov Set. K.aTpyacrOrj\ 
[vat V rr)L covrji yoprj-y-qo-ofjiev e] 
[aXXctiv vofJLO)}v ap[. .] 
10 ov reXof TO yivvptvov airo 


Aifivrjv ayopaa-avTL 


arjcrafiov ^ 'Ato 
15 KpoTcovos y *B 

/cat coore ety TTJV ev 

dt,a0(TLV OV T\0f 

o TOV Tlpoo-atTriTrjv 


20 EN T6)I NITP[I]6)THI 

[T]OV 8c KpOTcova ov Set KaTpy{a]cr0Tjva.i 
[v] Ti)i COVT][L\ -)(oprjyr}a-OfJLV ef [aX] 
[Xcov] vofj[a>]v ap 'A 
25 [ov TeXos T]O yivofJLevov a?r[o rou] 

CJol. 62. [KpOT]covof V7rap[t TCOI TTJV] 




[KCLL cojore cis rrfrv ev AXe^avSpctat] 
[8ia0](rii> ov Tf[Aoy ovOe 

[rat O] TOV C[@VVVTT)V] 

[ayopaa-as ap . .] 

[TOV 8e KpOTUva ov Set 

ya[(r0Tjvai] v TTJI (o[v7ji. xoprjyjj] 10 

<ro[fJL\v ^ aXXcov [VOJJKOV] 

apra^as M0 

ov TO reXoy TO yivoiitvov a 


TOV CefavvvTrjv ayopa&avTi 15 


/ca[t] (wore 

cv Toif aXXoif vofjioi? ov rcAoy 

ov[0t\v Trpa^CTCu o TOV MevSrj 20 

o~i[ov] ayopacras M 'B 

T[O}V $ KpOTQ)Va O[v] Set KCL 

v T[rjL co]vr)i 

aXX]cov Col. 63. 

[ ap .}(f> 

ov TO reAfor TO yivo^v\Qv 


TOV M.v[8rj(riov ayopao~a]vTi 5 



[KO,I coo-re ets TTJV 


10 ov r[o] re[Ao]y ovOe[v 7rpa 

o TOV Boi^aLlpiTrjv ay{op]acras 

KpOTCOVO? [ & . .] 

(rrjora/jiov ^ 'An/ 

15 o-rjcrajjiov ^ 

/cat e/c ra)V aXXwv 


ov TO reAoy ro 
afro T.OV (rrjo-dfjiov 


TL KpOTWVo[s] 

/cat coorre i[y rlous 1 aXXovs VOJJLOVS 

Col. 64. o[w TeXof 

o T[OV A0pi(3iTrj]i> ayopacras 


] ^ 
/<c rcov aXA]<z/ VOJJLCOV 

] ap 'B 

[ou ro reXos TO yi\vojJLevov 
[euro TOV crrjo-afjiov 



qkyopacravTi TOV $ Kpo] 10 

r[a)i>a ov 8f 

6[rjv]ai v TTJL [co]vr)i 

[(TO fJiV e a\\O)V VOfJLWV 

[ov TO] rfAoy TO yivonevov 15 

[ro]i> KpoTwvo? virap^ei - 
T(oi TOV H\i07r{o}\tTrjv ayo 



arja-afjiov M 'A 

JC[CM] K TWV a\Xa>v 

[Xop7jyr)}(TOfJiv [ap . .] Col. 66. 

[ov TO rejAoy TO yLvo[jJivov airo TO]V 
[crrja-afjL\ov vwap^eL [TCOL TOV Boi>] 
[jSaortjTTyz/ Acat Bof[/3ao-rov ayo] 
[pao~av]Tt TOV $e KpoTwva ov 
[KaTp'/}a(r6rjvai ev [TTJL covrjt 
fj; aX[Xcov vofjuov] 

. . 

[ov TO reAoy TO ytvofjievov airo] 

r[6\v K^poTcovof vTrap^ei T&I TOV] 10 

Bov(3(a(rTi}r7]v KGU B[oi;^3 a(rr[o]v 


o~r)o~afjLov & 'A//, 

*5 /cat tocrre ty rouy aAAouy vopovs 

apovpas 'B 

ou reAoy ovOtv 7r/>a[e]rat o TTJI/ 
Apafiiav ayopaaas TO[V 8e] Kporco 
va ov 8ei KaTpya[(r6]r]vai, ev 

20 T7?t a)vr)[i\ xoprj'yrj(roiJi[]v e a\ 

Xatv vofjicov ap T\/^ 

Col. 66. ou [ro reAoy ro] yivop.ev[ov wrap] 

e[i ran TTJV A]pa(3iai> ay[opaa-avTi\ 


5 K[OLL cocrre eis TO]VS a\\ov[s VOJJLOVS} 

ov [TO reAoy o]vOev 7rpa[eTcu] 
o [TOP C.0panT}Tjv ayopa[(ras] 
[apovpas . . ] 

[TOV de Kporcova ov Set Karep] 

10 y[ao-0r)vai ev TTJL u>vv}i xP r l] 

yrjaofjiev e [a]XXo)v V[OJJL\O>V 
aprafias 'Eu^ 

ou reAoy ro yivoptvov [a]?ro 


15 TOV CeQpatiTrjv ayopaa{a}vTi 

crr]o~afJLOV y 'AuA 
Ka[t] a>o-T is T[O]VS aXXovf VO/JLOVS 


ov reXos ov0v wpa^Tai [o] TOV 

TaviTTjv ayopao~as id *A<o 20 

TOV & KpoTwva ov &t Ka.T{p}ya(r 

Orjvat cv [rrji avrji] \opr] Col. 67. 

[ef; aXXwv] 


j;i Tca[t TOV TaviT]rjv 


[/cat a)]r[r] eiy TOVS aA[Aot>y] 10 


7r/>aera o TOV A.COVTO 
TroXtTTjv ayopa.(ra? id 2/t 


fv TTJL covrji 15 

e aXXwv 


ov TO TeXos TO 
euro TOV KpOTuvo? 



[EN TCOI 4)A]PBA9ITHI coi. es. 

[/cat wore] cty rouy a[XXouy] 



o]v TeXoy o[v0v] 
[7T/?afer]at o TOV <$>[ap(3ai] 

ay}opao~a$ [& . .] 
de K\po[T](ov[a ov 8ei KO\ 
[Tpya(r0r/va]t ev [TTJI covrji] 
[XOpijyijo'OfjLev e aXXcov] 
10 [vofjuov ap . . ] 

[o]v TO r[eA]oy r[o yii/o/ze] 


eL [rjoot TOV <$>ap(3aL0i 

o"rjcrafjLov M VTT 


KOll (OO~T 1? T7JV 8ia0O~lV 


20 ov TeXos ovdev irpa^eTai 

o TOV ArjTOTroXiTrjv ayo 
pao-as y 'A2v 


o~r)o~a\jj.ov ap] 'A2 
KpoTO)[vos ap . .] 
5 ov reA[oy ovOev 7r]/>a[^erat] 

o Ttjv eX[aiKrjv TTJ\V e[v Me/n] 
(j)t ay[opao~as] 



/ecu CK Ttov aXX(o(v] VOJJLWV 10 

XOprjyr}[(r}oiJLv ap M'B 


OTTO rou 


ayopacravTi KCU TOV Kpo 15 

ov &i 

^ aXXwv VOIJLWV ap M 


7TO TOV KpOTWVO? V7Tap[(]l 2O 

rcoi TOV JZpfJiOTroXiTrjv ayo 

[EN] TCOI O[SYPYrXI]THI coi. 70. 

[o-rjo-a/jLov id] 'Ao)[.] 

[TOV 8c KpoTcava] ov 8c[i\ 
[KaTpyacrdrjvai ev] TTJI [co] 
[vrjL yopriyqa-oiJLe}v e a[X] 
[Xa)v vofunv ap] * 
[ov TO TfXof TO 
[OTTO TOV KpoTcovos \nrap} 
[ei TCOI TOV Ovpvy\i} 

[TTJV ayopao-avri] 10 

H 2 


cnjcra/jLOv id 'B 


Xoprjyr)(TOfJLv ap 'Bw 
15 ov TO TeXof TO yivojJLvov 


ayopacravT[i] KO.L TOV 
VOL ov Sei K.aTepyaa{0\rivaii ev 
20 rrji covrji ^oprjyrjcro^ev 

[e]^ [a\]Xa)v vofj,Q)v ap ' 

Col. 71. [ov TO] reAoy TO [yLvo^v]ov airo 

[TOV K\pOTcov[of VTrap^]cL root 
[ro^] HpaK\[o7roXiTrj]v ayo 


[o-rjo~a}fjLov [^ . .] 

[KpOTCOVOf ti . .] 

[KOLL coore ety TOVS aXXovs] 
ov reAoy ovOev] 

10 '- irpatTaL o TOV 


jyj TTJV ayopacras w [ ] 
o"r)crafj.ov ^ 'H'J 1 


15 roz/ 5e KpOTCova ov Set KCL 


Tpyao~0rjvai v rrjt o> 
vrjt xoprjyrjo~ofJLv c a\ 
Xcov vofjuov ap *B2 
ov TO TeXof TO yivofji 




ap . . 

[ou TO reXor TO yivoptvov} 5 

[aTro rou o-rjo-afjLov vTrap^ei] 
[TMI TOV KvvoTroXiTijv} 
[ayop]qo~avT[i KCLI TOV Kpo] 
[r]&)j/a ov Set ^aTtpyao-Or) 
[vai] U [. .] 10 


(Trjo~a.fJLOV ap 'Bu 

KpoTcovof ap 'B/3K 

ou TcXof ovdev Trpa^eTai 15 

o TTJV eXaiKrjv TTJV v 

TCOI Mfft^tTT/i ayopao~a? 





/Cat 0)(TT lf 



hand. ' L 

Col 73 ln"a>Aoi;fi]ei> ra? Tpair^as 

. . . Kara 

5 [ 

[ ] 7rapa[ ] 

The rest lost. 

Col. 74. TrapaXrf^rovTai 8e /cat ot OLKOVO^JLOL /cat ot 7rpag"g\pVTes TI] 
3a<TtXiK[(a]v wapa TWV /caTa/3aAAoyra>|V ra . . . .] 
K.O.00TL /cat T[YJ\V [r/o]a7reaj/ yeypafTrrat] 

]vcri TTOLVT^S ] 

5 pa[ ] aAAwt [ ] 

' t -I 

oao ............................. 

The rest lost. 

Col. 75. [at ev TOLLS] 7roAecrti> rj KcofJLai? rpaTrefyu, ^acrtAt/cat /LIT; VTT[. 


tav 8e fji 

[TCOL rrj\v rpairefav rjyopaKo[Ti KaO e/cajor^v TjfJLepav h [. .] 
5 [. . e^ejcrro) 8e TOLS rp[a7T^iTaif Trapa] TCOI> /cara/3aA[Aoz/ro)i/] 
[ ....... ]v apyv[pi ................... X]a 

[TOV fiao-L}XiKOv c[ .................... ejav 


}LV 77 /ioAv[S .................... \v 


The rest lost. 
[ .............. ]a-TCL Trapao'^payi^ea'dco 8e o rjyopaKQ)? TTJV Col. 76. 

Kat . . .]KILLOV Trape^TO) orav 8 7rL7rapapi0/JLiv 
[ ........... o] TTJV Tpa7T^av ayopacras KCLI TOV \a\Kov Trapa 

r) <TVVTO. 5 

irpos TOV TjyopaKora rr]v rpaireav eat/ 8e a\t}(rKrjTai 
[ ........... ](TTp(r[da) .................... Jan rrjv 

[ .......... 8]i8oTo> v[ ......................... ] 

[ ........... ] irpos a[ ......................... ] 10 

The rest lost. 

[ ....... an av ypoL^rjL] iravra ^OL\KOV 8i8ovat ^p-rj^anei Col. 77. 

[ ................ ] an 8 av ypoL<^\r]i\ irav apyvpiov VTTO\O 

[yew ............ ]ov 8ct TOV ^aA/cof 8o0r]i>ai TOV 

[ ................ ]o 8iaypa<f)TQ) 8c eis TO (S[ao-]iXiK[o]v 

[ ............... a}yopa.LOi Kat OL ye[ .............. ] 5 

[ ................. ]ov Kai OL A[ ................... ] 

[ ................ ] ffJLTTOpCOV [ ................... ] 

The rest lost. 
ra>[ ................ ]rj 88aviKvai avTOVs 7Tt T[. . . .] Col. 78. 

OL 8e8avi 


Kor[f firj] wpoio'Tao'Bai aXXa 

TT[I ]os aTToypa^acrdaxrav AC[. 

5 e[ ,]vTf a7ro8e[ ] 

The rest lost. 

Col. 79. About 4 lines lost. 

E - ] avrov 

The rest lost. 

Col. 80. av[ ] 


ot 7riaJLvoi Taxrav avrgvf 


/cat [ ]cov T{ 


The rest lost. 

Col. 81. ran vofjicoi e a 

]i TCOfJi ir\OL(>[v 

]6w Se ev r)fjiep[ais 
5 ]fjir)L KCLI apy[ 

o OIKOVO\ILO$ KCLI o avTiypa[(f)vs 
} Trap avrois [ 

] Tovf v[ 
The rest lost. 




avrois K 


r) TO( 

]ap X rjo[ 
] rats *c[ 


o] de 





The rest lost. 

rov Karq[ 


The rest lost. 

] M(TO/)I /cat 

] TOVS OL\[ 

}v 01 Xonr[oi] 5 



Col. 82. 

Col. 83. 




rov rrjv covr) 
o aj/]rty/)[a]0e[i;]y KCLL of 

7r/oaar[a> Trapa TOV TIJV wvrjv ^OV]TOS /cat [ 


Col. 84. 


Col. 85. ] 7rm/4 ...... 

] fiao'iXtKOi' 7ra[ ...... }av TO re[ 

]ov Sidoordo) r[ ....... efyovri. r[ 

v ecrrw TOV a(Ti\ ..... o 5 

]epo? eKacrTOL fj[ ............. ]rj a7ro8an r[ 

]q.L V TCOi VO/JLCt)[t ....... 8tKT]i\ VlKr)0l 

(T\VV TOlf T7j[v WVrjV t\OV(TL 


]crav Trj[ 

The rest lost. 

]v vavreiav [ .......... ] 

]eOTyo4 ............ }7TLTlfJiOV [ 

]HCIC TEACO[N ..... ray 

T\Ci)V O(j)iXoVTCi)[l> 

10 ] aTTO/eypa/il/te^ 


The rest lost. 

Col. 86. ]TL KO[ jicrrt a(f> 

]r)-yfj.a[ ]i eAcaor 

fjLTj]i'os' Me^6t/o[ ] irpoevres Kar[ 

] aXot VTrep avr[wv }eis rrjf wvrjs e[ 

5 ]s UTroreXecri 7rp[ ]icoray r)r[ 

}av 7Tl TOV 8LOlK[rjTOV ]7TO[. . .] OO\ 

]g 8LOtK7jT7jf[ ]a,TUKrav 

} 01 8 '/KaXoVVT[f }(TV a(f) OV[ 




/3a<rt[Aea 10 



KCU K TOV diay[ 

The rest lost. 

KOLL oi 

]. . . IS TOV XlVOV K[ 

[. .]rjvcu Xivov 

[. .]vf apovpa? 

]TO> avr[ 

tav 8e ov[ 


] I- 2 

ra,[. ,>a(. .] 
]o[. .}KCO(. . .} 


TOV (3a(riXiKov /Lie 
KCLI U0at/ro>[. .] 

lf T[. .] 

Col. 87. 

VTO> lf TO 

virjpa Acara[ 

]ia 7r[a}pa[' . . .] I0 
]ro) h 'A 




The rest lost. 

Col. 88. 


I 2 


vrai K re TTCO 

]ay 8 
tf av 

jroxrai/ r[. . .] 

10 jewy eAcaar[ ] 

}v 8e XOLTTCOV r[. . .] 
ri^z/ rt/L4- ] 
o rer[. . .] 

The rest lost. 

Col. 89. ] KOLL rcov T* e e[ 

] cav 8e 
ir]pos r{6\ 

/3[ ]ffcr0a> (njfjLaLveorBco 8e c[ 

5 ] eaz/ /XT; 7rapa8i[ 

7rapa8ei]yiJLa o re OLKOVO^JLOS ic[ 



10 jwra yiveg-[ 

] 7TL 

] TO 

The rest lost. 


Col. 90. 
}v [lev 7rap[a]8o[ 


]/xa wpos TO ira[ 5 

]vy ira[ 

]va-if K[ 

Tf)]? 8lOlKr}CT[a)$ 

]Kpi0r)i Acara[ 
The rest lost. 

] rov OLKovo^Jiov r[ Col. 91. 


> 8 v TCOL 


]a)i KOIT[ 

v]<j>avTa{.} KO.I ci[ 

The rest lost. 

] /Cat 7TGU[ llth 


] K T7 ? y t Col. 92. 


The rest lost. 


12th cw C^VVV[TOV KOLL 

Co* 93. 

as TWV 5[e etf HrjX]ov<riov 
5 $VVVT[ ....... ] CTriOaXaao'iav r[ 

Trept f4v [avrov o ^}a<jL\vs 5tayi/&)[o-erat eLcnrpaacrea] 
0w 8e T[ ....... }v 

K[ ............. TO 

[ ............. ]TO[ 

10 [ .......... 

[ ........... ] TOV 

[ ............. }VOVT(DV 

The rest lost. 
Col. 94. ] V7royeypai4fj]evr]? 


(r}vv TOOL TpLrjpapxrjfjiaTL 

]v Kai yeipwfjia ACT[. . .] ra 
5 TOV L]CTTOV h /ce raA[ ...... ]v(ri 

[ ] 

10 ] TVXIG)[ 

} KttL [ 


The rest lost. 



h 117 [ 



The rest lost. 

0(ro[v] 8 ay 
TCO[L oi]KOVOfJU0i 7rapa[ 


7jy[opa}KOT<0i> ro[. . 


] H /3-c 

}V(TI \~ pK 
]pl H pTT 

] reAo? 
]o Ta\av 
]r)<rov(rt H 

Col. 95. 


Col. 96. 

The rest lost. 

OLK]OVOJJLOV KOLL avny[pa}(f)a>s K.O.L T[. .] col. 97. 


jevrey rov 7* H 'A 

ty cTTt 

AjAe^aj/ 5 


[8pei } Xaficov rrjv XLVO[ 

}v anvaiov Ka.0[ 

}r)V TOLL? TOIS 0~V[ 

]vois is TO (3a[o-iXiKov 
10 o~\TaXVTos y[ 

]opaiov X[ 
] LS 8e [ 
}v qve[ 
The rest lost. 

Col. 98. ]e y a v \- [ ]KO 

]a v \- fJL aXXwv a v h [ }wv ir 

}v OL V \- f yLTwvwv [ ]a v h 

5 ] ocrov av Ka6{ ] 

} TO reXoy TT[ ] 

}a>v TWV KO,T[ } 

] LKOO~Tr)l> [ }lf 

] KCLL TWV a[ 
10 ] TO {3acriXiK[ov 

The rest lost. 

10th ]. . .[. .> 



]{oi ev raty) 



KcoX[ ..... ] 







The rest lost. 

The rest lost 

About 6 lines lost. 

]cup = c 



Col. 100. 

Col. 101. 

[. . .] a\\[.]tv T[ 

ov av{ 

TOV 1(TO[ 

TOV [ 

TV\ia)l> 6V TOV [.]v[ 

TifJirj Xivov [ 


The rest lost. 

The rest lost. 


Col. 102. 



Col. 103. On the verso of Cols. 99-100. 

]lfJLVOl TT)V [TlfJLr)]v TOW [{$\V<TCri[v}u>V K.OLI T[COV 

KOLI epiKwv ra fj,v a\Xa ^[ 
r[au] e/c/cet/xe^wt CTTI TTJ[L o]0o[v 
ev T0)[i . . . .la/itari TOVTCOI \prjcrovTai TOV 

5 Tr}paovTai 8e [ ..... ]ovfj.evcov TCOJJL fj,ey [ 

V". . .V ........ ] TO \ivov K TifJirjo-ecos TT[ 

]ei>ou 7rapaKa[ 

10 ] TWV 5e ai>8[ 

The rest lost. 

Col. 104. On the verso of Cols. 98-99. 

rav ran 


/cat o avTaevs . . .Taxrav ran 
ra aw 


t fJLiq-Ka[ ......... ] TOVVOfJLO. 

TTOLTpoOev K\ai TrarpiBos [/cat e]/c Trotay TroAecoy 
5 ] TTOCTOU e[ ............ ]cri ra reA?; 

]az/[ ................ ] o-(f)payida 

The rest lost. 

Col. 105. On the verso of Cols. 97-98. 

[ raA]ai>ra irev 

[r ] ro 5e Tre/iTrrfoj/] 

[. . .] oaf , ] eic 


01 [ 


rwarav [ 

01 e LO 10 

The rest lost. 

On the verso of Col. 97. Cd. ioe. 


ravra r[ 

[. . . .]av 8e rrji[ 

[ ..... }rat 01 [ 

[ ...... }o~av irpos r[ 

TWV V(f)Qv{T 10 

The rest lost. 
On the verso of Cols. 95-96. Col. 107. 

ra V fJL7TOplO)l T\r) [ TQ3V 

ov av vofJLo[v 


K 2 



10 [ 


TOVS e ay 


The rest lost. 

Frag. 1. 

(a) ]KOV 

]Xr) e/cacrr[ 


] TO TTi[ 

Tops of columns. 

(b) ] . -ypv . . . [ 
]8ev T[ 

(d) ]av Aetay 8ta[ 

] ev rrj[i u]crre[/oaiat 

] eav 8e TL[ 
]<rrjTCU air[ 

] 7Tl[ 

]pot cocr[ 



]a>v ev T0)t v[ 

] TOVS ^[ 

] Trap O.VT[ 





ere [ 



TOlf [ 

}V(TIV CC7r[ 





(a) blank 

(g) ](/>ov KCU Oca . ca{ 




Tops of columns. 


]v a?r[ 



Frag. 2. 



} KCU l(TT[ 

(/) TTJV] (ovrjv f^ovra [ 

TlfJirjV T[ ]pOV/JLVO)V T(OV [ 

VL^ofJifi^ ]/ie[. .}v KO.I i [ 

cav 8e av[ }/JL firjvt \[ota^ 

7TlKplv[ ] fJLTJVl Xoftt^[ 5 




(g) ]fiov [. .] (h) jots- ve[ (i) blank 

> 14 

]e/o /cat 

J /cat oi 


]a reAoi>[. 

Frag. 3. Tops of columns. 

(a) }r]L KO[ (b 

]$ Aeta[ ]/c avro[ 

jtort 5ou[ 

]?// J/[ 

Frag. 4. Middles of columns. 

(a) ]<rrou[ (b) ]TOV[ (c) 

](f)(rdaL T[ ]z/cot yj)ova>i[ oi\KovofjLOV 

}<jav KCLT[ ]rov 

5 v]ofjLapxr)t [ ]fnj \afjL^a[v ]vTU 

]v e/caoroy [ 7r]trt/io^ 7rp[ ] 

} 7r\i[ ] 5e/ca[ ]v ^ 

}crTpa[ }ov rj[ 

}rofj[ ]ety TO (3a[(rt\iKOv 

10 ] /car[ ]y roty [ 



}rji airo[ 


(k) blank (/) 

]ot 7r( 

}OL fJL\] 




] TOV [ 





(fn) M.] 


(/> M 


] a7ror[ 
jrer *a[ 
Vow ay[ 

] irapa rwv 
}s viav[ 
}pcu? r[ 

]V TOV[ 

]TOV c[ 


oi a[ 
]of TO[ 

(;/) blank 

/cai ra 





? T 

10 ]coi 

Frag. 5. Middles of Columns. 

(a) }v avTiy[pa<f) (b) r] 

] twonoi K[ } 

}poy TOVS e[ }ai rrjt 

]rjv avr[ lara 

5 ]r)f airoypl }(rai TT}[.] 

} Tr/ooecr 
ev[ } 7r/oo/3ar[. 

(c) ]pa ra[ (d) jot 


TO[ } 

av[ a]\Xoi? 

Frag. 6. Bottoms of columns. 

(a) M. . .] (b) blank ( 

7rapaK[. .} ] 


eyyvovs ]aAety KOLL 7r[ 




] Kara rpifirj 
y]yvov irapa 

]av 8e ot u 
] TOV KaTp[y]ov 
(d) }KICU KO[ 



]<f)OV TO 
} TCOi TT[ 





]rj irapa [ 
joro) TOV )8[ 
] firj Scot a 

} fJLTf] 







]eta ye[ 
lop 8 av{ 




}TJL TO re eroy KCU [ 

]V KO.I TTJV KWfJirjV [ 

o]j/<tyta /cat [. . .] 7rapa[ 
}CTLV r)n[. .]e[. .]$ TTJV [ 



A : cols. 1-22. 

B : cols. 23-37. 

C : cols. 38-72. 

D : cols. 73-78. 

E : cols. 79-107 and Fragments. 

Lumb. or L. Professor G. Lumbroso. 

L. Rec. Prof. Lumbroso's ' Recherches sur 1'e'conomie politique de 1'Egypte sous les 

Lagides.' Turin, 1870. 
L. P. 'Les papyrus grecs du Muse*e du Louvre et de la Bibliotheque Impe'riale,' 

Notices et Extraits, vol. xviii. part ii. Paris, 1866. 
M. Professor J. P. Mahaffy. 
P. P. ' The Flinders Petrie Papyri,' edited by Prof. Mahaffy. Dublin. Part I. 1891, 

Part II. 1893. Part II is meant unless the contrary is stated. 
P. P. App. ' Appendix to the Flinders Petrie Papyri.' Dublin, 1894. 
Rev. M. E. Revillout. 
R. E. Revue dgyptologique. 
Wilck. or W. Professor U. Wilcken. 
W. Akt. Prof. Wilcken's ' Aktenstiicke aus der Koniglichen Bank zu Theben,' in 

Abh. der Kon. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. 1886. 
W. G. G. A. Prof. Wilcken's review of ' The Flinders Petrie Papyri ' in Gottingische 

Gelehrte Anzeigen 1895, No. 2. 

W. Ostr. Prof. Wilcken's forthcoming ' Griechische Ostraka.' 
A. E. F. ' An Alexandrian erotic fragment and other Greek papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic,' 

by B. P. Grenfell. (In the press.) 

Numbers enclosed in brackets [ ] refer to columns. 


[1.] 1. ON the formula and the correction see Introd. p. xix sqq. 
It is possible that o-corrjpos was written by the first hand. But if so, 
it is absolutely certain that he wrote it as a correction, for o-oon/pos not 
only projects at the end of the line, but is written in smaller and more 
cursive letters, especially the T, which lacks the right-hand portion of the 
cross-bar. There is no other instance of r written thus in [1]-[15], 
though this is very far from proving that o-torjjpoy must have been 
written by another scribe, since [1]-[15] are written in a hand even 
more formal than most hands in the papyrus, and we cannot say what 
this writer's natural hand would be. But though on palaeographical 
grounds alone even a moderate degree of certainty is unattainable, on 
other grounds there is a strong probability that the writer of O-WTTJPOS 
was a different person from the writer of [1]-[15]. B and C were 
corrected in the office of Apollonius the dioecetes of the Fayoum, see 
notes on [23] i and [38] i, and it is therefore likely that A was 
corrected there also. It is even possible that a note stating this before 
[1] has been lost, but the fact that the papyrus begins with the opening 
formula is not likely to be a mere coincidence, though see note on 
[73] i. Still if A was corrected in Apollonius' office, the presumption 
is all in favour of the corrector here being different from both the writer 
of [1]-[15] and the writer of [16]-[22] ; and the few corrections in A, 
when not clearly made by the two scribes themselves, may all have 
been written by the corrector of C, who in addition probably inserted 
[31] 21-25, the only correction in B not made by the writers of B 

L 2 


The first three words, which are, like the headings, e.g. [5] 4, 
[15] 10, written in larger characters than usual, have been printed in 

2. riroXe/xaiou at the end is quite discernible; the vestiges at the 
beginning are consistent with nroAe^aiou, but that is all. 

3. We should expect the year to be mentioned, cf. [24] 2, but 
the papyrus is hopelessly effaced. The eponymous priesthoods were 
probably not mentioned in [24], so that it is not likely that they 
were mentioned here. 

[2.] 1-4. This section perhaps refers to a second auction after the 
a>*rj had been already bought; cf. L. P. 62 [3] 14-16, and Josephus, 
A. J. 12. 4. 4. 

3. fiv cannot be the end of -n-coXeiy : see note on [13] n. 

The subjects discussed in A, so far as they can be traced, are 
arranged on the whole in chronological order. [2] is concerned with 
the auction : [4]-[8] apparently have to do with the relations between 
the outgoing and incoming tax-farmers: [9]-[15] 9 with the conditions 
under which the new farmers and their subordinates entered office : 
[15] 10-16 with the collection of taxes: [16]-[20] are concerned with 
the monthly and the final balancing of accounts. The last three 
headings, a-vyypcKfxav, Karepyav, and eKK\rjrot \povoi, stand somewhat 
apart. A chronological order is also observed in B, and in [44]-[48] 
of C, where the subject is the manufacture of oil ; but in [39]-[43], 
regulations concerning the oil-producing plants, little order of any kind 
is traceable, and [49]-[56] are arranged on a different system. 

[3.] 1-3. ' The antigrapheis appointed by the oeconomus shall take 
charge of the revenue payable to the different companies of tax- 

2. Cf. [12] 2 and [21] 4, both passages referring to payments of 
salaries in which ot Karaorafleires avnypafais perhaps reappear. Sub- 
ordinate antigrapheis appointed by the oeconomus and antigrapheus, 
with other duties, occur in [46] and the succeeding columns, cf. [55] 21, 
and an antigrapheus TTJS wi^s appointed by the oeconomus is mentioned 
in [54] 20. Not only are the subordinate agents or representatives of 
the oeconomus and the antigrapheus (himself the alter ego of the 
oeconomus) called antigrapheis, but even the tax-farmers appoint 


antigrapheis, see [54] 16. It is remarkable that the /ScurtAuct; Tpaircfa is 
never mentioned in A, although the money payments were made to it, 
see [31] 1 6 note, and [56] 16. Of course mentions of the bank may 
have been lost, though the columns dealing with the 8ioAoyto>ios are 
fairly complete. But the explanation is, as W suggests, that A deals 
with the tax-farmers in their relations to the government officials ; the 
relations of the officials to the banks are discussed in D, the biaypa^a 
rpa-ntfav. See also note on [7] 5. 

4-7. The position of this fragment, as well as the corresponding one 
[4] 6-10, is uncertain, except in so far that both belong to the first four 

[4.] i. Possibly a reference to arrears of taxation, which were to be 
collected in thirty days : cf. [6] 2. 

[5.] i -3. ' If they are discovered to be in debt to the Treasury, those 
who secured their condemnation shall have a share in exacting the 

2. If KaraSiKao-afierois be correct, the 8 is written much smaller than 
the usual 8 in this hand, and is more like a-. Possibly this section has 
something to do with the informers, who were rife in the next century, 
see L. P. 6l. 1516 ^aAiora 8e riav <rvKO<pavT(iv tin.\*ipovvTu>v reAtorooy 
(so the facsimile) auroi re Trapa(pv\aa<r6c KCU Tracri TOIS jcara /lepos Siaerrei- 
\aar0f irtpt T(av avToiv /^ITJ Trapepycoj. vTTap\(Tca is more than a mere 
equivalent for eoro>, cf. [17] 11 and [28] 10, and the meaning perhaps 
is that the persons in question were not only to join in exacting the 
payment, but to keep a share of it. 

4. AI[ErnfH]2l2 would just fit the lacuna: cf. L. P. 62 [3] 6. The 
appointment of sureties is not decreed by any provision in A which has 
been preserved, unless [9] bears on that subject ; but the sureties are 
mentioned several times. The heading is here a substantive in the 
nominative, as usual : cf. [14] 2, [15] 10, &c. The genitive is found in 
[20] 13, [21] 2, and [31] 17: the infinitive with vntp in [24] 14; with 
fij in [28] 17 ; the infinitive alone in [26] 18, [30] 20; vittp with the 
genitive in Fr. i e. 

[6.] 1-3. ' It shall (not ?) be lawful for the tax-farmers to receive 
payments from those who collected the arrears, even if it be within the 
thirty days.' 


i. 01 fm\oyfv<ravTfs. The term is new; from [8] 4-6 it appears that 
they like the \oyfvrat had uTnjpeTcu, and that their services were required 
when the o>wj was changing hands. Cf. [19] 13, where tTriAoyeuo-is 
probably means ' supplementary collection of taxes/ i. e. ' collection of 
arrears.' Assuming /xrj to have been lost before eeoro> at the end of [5], 
the sense may be that the tax-farmers were allowed thirty days in 
which to collect arrears (cf. [4] i), but the arrears had to be paid not to 
the tax-farmers but to the oeconomus direct, cf. [18] 17 and [19] u. 
On this theory, however, we should expect TreTrpay/xareufxerois, not irpia- 
fxerois, cf. [8] 2. M. suggests that 1-3 are complete in themselves, the 
sense being that the new tax-farmers might receive the arrears left by 
their predecessors, but not until the thirty days had elapsed in which 
the outgoing tax-farmers might settle their accounts. This gives a more 
satisfactory meaning; cf. L. P. 62 [4] 10-12. But instances in the 
papyrus of a section beginning without a connecting particle are rare, 
and there is no instance of such an ellipse of a verb after /xrjSe. 

The irpa/cTcop is never mentioned in the Rev. Pap., though the office 
existed at this time ; see P. P. 42. 2, and Leyden pap. Q. 2. As Revillout 
has pointed out (R. E. ii. 140), his services were only required when 
some extraordinary payment, e. g. of a fine or arrears, was made. The 
P. P. quite confirm this view. Then what was the relation of the Trpa/cToop 
to 01 finXoyfvo-avTfs ? The use of the aorist participle is in favour of the 
term not being an official title ; cf. [52] 20 01 Aoyeuoyres i. e. Aoyeurai, 
and [18] 8 o CTH rrjs 8totK?jo-eo)s rerayjuez/os i. e. the 8101*777775, though 
o ayopaaas is found as often as o rjyopaKco? rrjv a>vr]v. 

[7.] 1-4. ' (The one copy shall be sealed and contain the names of 

the ) and of the witnesses, the other shall be unsealed ; and they 

shall enter in their books the names of the persons employed, with their 
fathers' names and their original homes, and the nature of each person's 

1. Cf. [27] 5 and 18 ra 8e avnypafya o-wTrpoo-eora) ao-$payio-ra. 

2. ot Trpayp.aTfvop.fvoi is a general term including all persons connected 
with farming the taxes, [12] 2, but with especial reference to the Aoyeurai, 
rTnjperai, &c., [10] 3, 17. Cf. 01 ra /SaaiXiKa Ttpayp.aTfvopfvoi, i.e. the 
government officials, [20] 15. In C 01 -npayp.aTfvop.fvoi TIJV (avr)v are 
identical with 01 


3. ypafaTuxrav : the subject is the tax-farmers; see [15] 16. Cf. 
[54] 22 and L. P. 62 [4] 18. The official document of the oeconomus 
is a ypafo, [12] 3. 

narpibos: Egyptians, as well as the foreign settlers, could be tax- 
farmers in the second century B.C. ; Lumb. Rec. p. 322. But TraTpiSos 
points to the fact, already traceable in the Petrie papyri, that most, if 
not all, tax-farmers in the third century B.C. were foreigners. 

5. <t>opTi(i>v : [l]-[22] no doubt apply equally to taxes in kind and 
taxes in money ; hence the brevity and indefiniteness of [15] 10-16, the 
section dealing with irpais T\U>V. The fact that taxes in kind as well as 
in money are meant helps to explain the absence of any mention of the 
royal banks (cf. [3] 2 note), which only received taxes in money, [31] 
1 6 note. 

[8.] 1-2. ' But if these persons did not connive at it, they shall exact 
the payment from the outgoing tax-farmers.' 

1. Cf. [21] 4-9. If there is a real parallel between the two passages, 
row-air may be 01 Karaoraflcyres (sc. arriypa^eis ; see [3] 2), and /XTJ goes 
with (rvvfiboToiv, not with ear. 

3-6. ' Let the tax-farmers bring an action, if they have any complaints 
to make against the collectors of arrears or their subordinates in matters 
connected with the farming of the taxes during the time in which they 
were engaged in buying the tax.' 

3. Ka\i(rd(t>o-av : cf. [21] 12 and [35] 3. In all these cases the word 
may be passive. 

4. uTTTjpcrai in A are always mentioned together with the Aoyevrai ; 
see [12] 12, [13] 2, and probably [11] 16 and [16] 12. They are 
a distinct class, subordinate to the Aoyeimu and receiving two-thirds 
of their pay ([12] 15). Cf. the ray/xariKoi virqpercu in Wilck. Akt viii. 2. 
In [22] 2 01 v7TTjperowTs are all those connected with the farming cf the 
taxes, other than 01 irpia/ievot. 

[9.] i. TTapa\a.p<a<riv : the subject is probably the tax-farmers. 

2. TO (fj.iropi.ov : cf. [107] i TO. fv efA-n-opiau TC\TJ, which seems to show 
that there were some taxes specially connected with the t^nopiov. Other- 
wise one might conjecture that the notice was put up in the bazar as 
being the most frequented place. 

3. Possibly e[v T]OH T[\O)ZH&H ... TO m]6cKaToi>, referring to the cyyvoi. 


Cf. L. P. 62 [1] 13-15 cyy uous K.a.TaaTt\aov(riv ..... TCDI; e7ri8eK<moi>. But 
in [34] 3 and [56] 15 the amount of the caution-money has to be only 
one-twentieth greater than the sum promised by the tax-farmers. 

It is difficult to see any reason for the correction of the a in btKarov, 
unless, because from the way in which it was joined to the K by the first 
hand, it might be read as a Cf. [31] 17 and [52] 24, where there are 
equally unnecessary corrections, and not improbably [15] 15. 

5-8. The middle fragment in this and the succeeding columns is 
much nearer to the lower piece than to the upper. 

[10.] 1-4. ' They shall appoint a guard for the inspectors, the tax- 
collectors and the guardians of the vouchers, and all others engaged in 
the tax-farming 

i. <t>vXa,Kr]v, sc. KdTaoTTjfl-ouo-i. In the provinces the tax-farmers were 
sometimes assisted by troops in collecting the taxes, Jos. A. J. 12. 4. 5, 
and Lumb. Rec. p. 325. ^vXaxTj is used in Leyden pap. O for the office of 
the <rvyypa(f>o<t>vXaK(s ; cf. (ru/x/3oAo<|>vA.acs here. But as the $0801 are found 
in connexion with </>uA<mrai in App. II (4) 10, I prefer to take </>uAa/oj in 
its ordinary sense. The e$o8oi were important officials, judging by the 
amount of their pay, [12] 18. Their title is still frequently found in 
the Berlin Urkunden of the Roman period. 

[10.] 8-[H.] 10. The structure seems to be as follows: (a) [10] 
8-12, a regulation applying to the tax-farmers, 'The chief farmer and 
his associates shall not receive any payments except in the presence of 
the oeconomus and antigrapheus.' The penalty for disobedience is 
probably that fixed in [11] 5-6. () A regulation that the tax-farmers 
should report what they received either to the oeconomus or to the 
antigrapheus. [10] 14-15 may be the conclusion of this rule, the 
penalty for disobedience being fixed in [11] 7-10. (c) and (d), parallel 
regulations for the e$o5<n and others, [10] 16-18 : the penalty is fixed in 
[10] i8-[ll] 3. 

[10.] 10. Koivavfs : in the other places where the word is used 
the papyrus is mutilated or consistent with the commoner form 


ii. avcv: cf. [25] 6 and [30] 10. Payments in money did not pass 
through the hands of the tax-farmers ; see [31] 14 note. The presence 


of a government official, but not the presence of the tax-farmer, was 
essential in all payments of taxes. 

16. Perhaps [a><ravro>s ie], and then fav ri r[<of rAo>i>] itpafcuxrw. 

[11.] i. a[vi>cyK<t><ri] : cf. [11] 7. Perhaps 'pay as an avafyopa? see 
[19] 5 note. 

3. There are great difficulties in the way of supposing the name of 
a coin to have been lost after TrcirrjKon-a here and in line 10. 50 talents 
are too much, 50 drachmae too little, so that the only alternative is 
50 minae, which M. would adopt. But (i) 50 minae seem an inadequate 
fine, and when this amount is expressed, it is called 5000 drachmae, not 
50 minae. (2) As the amount appropriated by the tax-farmers might 
vary, we should expect a sliding scale, not a fixed sum, for the penalty. 
(3) The custom of the papyrus, to which in A there is no exception, is 
that where there is no article the number comes after the noun. There- 
fore on the whole, since this offence would be one of the most serious 
which the tax-farmers or their subordinates could commit, I prefer 
ir(vrriKovTaiT\ovv here and in line 10, though there is no instance in the 
papyrus of a fine larger than five-fold, when calculated in this way. 

[11.] 11-17- 

n. Perhaps ovop.ara TrapaSoxroim, as Mr. Kenyon suggested to me: 
cf. [12] 2. 

17. The exact position of the fragment containing pafyevr in relation 
to the preceding line is doubtful. CTTI T?/I oorqi, cf. [17] 13, Wilck. 

[12.] 1-6. ' If the oeconomus and antigrapheus discover any person 
employed in farming the taxes whose name has not been entered in the 
list, they shall bring him to the king before he has been able to injure 
any one.' 

i. ot 8e oiKovopos: cf. [28] 12, where 01 8e o, whatever we may think 
of the Greek, is necessary, and [96] 4, where 01 8e oixoro/ioy KCU o CUTI- 
ypa</>us is corrected. 

4. [/3A.a/3T/i/ai TI] Wilck. For an instance of an unlicensed tax- 
collector, see the complaint of the cobbler, P. P. xxxii (i). 

[12.] 11-18. 

II. Possibly ot KaT\a<rra[6tvT(s, see [3] 2 note; and then roiy ev 



13. Probably ir]oeio-0a) and corco 8c] in line 14. TheAoyeurcu, 
&c. were to be paid out of the sums collected. But nowhere in A or B 
is there any mention of a pio-dos for the tax-farmers, nor did they 
receive a pio-Oos in the second century B.C.; cf. note on L. P. 62 [5] 3. 
And as the account of the 8ioAoyi<r/io?, where it would certainly have 
been mentioned, is fairly complete both in [16]-[20] and [34]-[35], we 
may conclude that the tax-farmers received nothing but the surplus 
above the sum which they had contracted to pay to the government : 
see [19] 4 and [34] 13. The position of the contractors for the oil 
monopoly was different ; there was hardly any room for an cTriye^/xa in 
the sense in which it is employed in A and B, and even if there was such 
an eTnyeznj/jia, it is doubtful whether they received it ; moreover they had 
definite administrative duties to perform. Hence they received a fu<r0os, 
[39] 14 note. 

15. Cf. App. ii. (4) 5, 8 cos TOU JUTJVOS. In 17 a number has perhaps 
been lost : cf. ec/>o8cot e*u. 

[13.] 1-4. ' A list of all the collectors required for each farm, and 
their subordinates and the guardians of the receipts, shall be drawn up 
by the oeconomus and antigrapheus acting in conjunction with the chief 

i. (Kaarrjv : this shows that A is quite general and applies to all wat 
throughout the country. 

a. <,x/3o\a: cf. [21] i, [52] 16, 24. 

[13.] 7~[14] i. A regulation forbidding certain persons to farm the 
taxes: cf. [15] 2 sqq. The penalty is fixed in line n sqq. : 'Whoever 
disobeys any of these rules shall pay 5 talents to the Treasury and shall 
be kept under arrest until the king decides his case.' This is the only 
passage in the papyrus where the absence of a law of habeas corpus is 
conspicuous ; but cf. P. P. iv. (7) 5. Imprisonment was but rarely 
employed as a punishment, though it is no doubt implied in [12] 2 and 
[49] 20. 

11. ITJ. It is possible that the corrector, whether he be the scribe 
himself, or, as I think, another person, intended to alter TTOJJCTTJI to TTOIT; ; 
cf. for the omission of the i adscript [22] 2 note. But it is more likely 
that he wished to correct the spelling, and divide the word differently, 
7roi7?|o-jji instead of 7ro|7jo-rji, though instances of the division of a word 


between two vowels are not uncommon in B and C, e.g. [29] 17 ye!a>,/yoy, 
[54] 1 6 A<u|ot>. In the division of words the practice of the scribes was 
to divide a word at the end of a syllable, except in some cases where the 
last letter of a syllable was a consonant. Thus we find [52] 10 uy>o<r|<r- 
"npa(T(T((rd<i)iTav t [56] 9 irpo<r\a-/y (\evros, [36] 5 ypaji|/*arevt, and probably 
even ap\\<ai'(i)v [14] 9, [46] 4 Kpivr\0(a (cf. 46. 8, where <r is attracted to 
the preceding vowel, Kara<r|ra0cis). On the other hand, the tendency to 
end with a vowel and begin the next line with a consonant is shown by 
[21] 7 ir(Trpa\yn<iT(viJL(voi, [30] 9 yypa|7rrai, [37] 7 yir|o-0ou, &c. 

The fragment containing ]<oi> os[ and ]/3a[ in line 1 2 has disappeared. 

12. There seems to be insufficient room for 

[14.] 2-5. ' Registration of chief tax-farmers. Intending chief tax- 
farmers shall register themselves before the official who holds the 
auction . . .' 

3. apxu>v[fiv] : Wilck. The verb is not found elsewhere in the 
papyrus, but apxwj^cu] would be very awkward here. 

4. TOP TrooAowra : there was no special TTCOAT/TTJS in Egypt, the auction 
being held by various officials, though generally by the oeconomus, 
[20] 12. Cf. L. P. 62 [7] i9-[8] 4, where 01 irooAourres are the oeco- 
nomus and probably the /Sao-iAixos y/ja^/xareus, for in [8] 13 of that 
papyrus the officials who hold the auction are subordinate to the 
eiri/xeATjTTjs as well as to the Sioi/ctjTr/y. In pap. Zois it is Dorion, o yero- 
JA>OS eTTifieA^TT/? irpos TTT]v cy\r]\lnv rrjs JHT/HKT/S, who holds the auction. 
Cf. the papyrus published by Rev. R. E. vii. 40, where the oeconomus 
was probably the auctioneer. In [57] 3 TrcoAou/ie^ it is the king who 
speaks ; cf. [53] 1 8 note. 

[14.] 9-[16] i. 

9- [Px] I wvwi; suits the context, though there is no other instance of 
a word divided in such a way that there is a consonant at the end 
of a line and a vowel at the beginning of the next, except in the case 
of a word compounded with a preposition : see [13] 1 1 note. 

12. fieT[ayopa<rTji] is too long for the lacuna. Possibly /mT[oAa/3jji]. 

16. 5i5axru/ appears to be a mistake for SiSou, unless the subject is not 
o 8iyyva>fA>os, but ot KOUHDVCS. 

[15.] 2-9. 'They shall be ineligible for becoming cither chief tax- 

M 2 


farmers, or associates, or sureties. (Likewise) crown officials, the 
chrematistae, the eisagogeus 

3. M. suggests taking 00-01 TI *c.r.A. closely with the preceding lines, 
but there is no parallel instance in the papyrus of an unfinished line 
in the middle of a sentence. Probably a division-line between lines 
3 and 4 has been lost, and ot 8e refers to the persons mentioned in 
[14]. But in any case the meaning of lines 4 sqq. is that oo-ot K.T.A. 
are not to take part in the tax -farming. 

5. The eto-aycoyeus is always mentioned in connexion with the chrema- 
tistae in Ptolemaic papyri : see L. Rec. p. 184. 

7-9. Apparently a regulation forbidding a slave to take part in 
farming the taxes. Though the slaves of the government officials are 
included, cf. M. Introd. p. xxxi, this regulation was probably quite 

[15.] 10-16. 'Exaction of taxes. The tax-farmers shall exact from 
those who are subject to taxation all the (taxes) in accordance with the 
laws. If they disobey this rule in any particular, they shall pay a fine 
of 3 talents to the Treasury, and (twice ?) the amount of the deficiency, 
unless they enter in their books within 30 days the taxes that are 

i a. irav : the meaning is that the tax-farmers were to grant no 
remissions of taxation: cf. L. P. 62 [1] 9-13, where SnrAas would suit 
the lacuna in line 12, as 8i7rAa is possible in line 15 here; and pap. in 
P. P. App. p. 3, the complaint of Apollonius, a tax-farmer, against 

Philo, his associate, on avev TJJUCOU [71730] ez;ei TOVS woreAets TOU 

<|>uAaKi[ri]/cou eis TO ibiov KCLI e eAarroros (not e eaurou) 
TToieirat. (In line 5 of that document read uTro/x^Tj/xara for 

Though a before ex is doubtful, Traz/rfas TO, TeA]rj is impossible. 

15. The letter written above the line may be a. But if it is 77, it is 
still possible that the first hand had written /XTJ : see [9] 3 note. 

[16.] ' Balancing of accounts. The oeconomus shall hold a balancing 
of accounts with the tax-farmers every month before the loth with refer- 
ence to the sums received during the previous month They shall 

not add the sums received in (the current month?) to the instalment 
belonging to the previous month, nor take sums which belong to one 
instalment and credit them to another, and even if one of the tax- 


collectors or of their subordinates pays back (?) a sum which he has 
received from the revenue of the farm, this shall not be credited to his 
separate account. But when the next balancing of accounts takes place, 
they shall add to the revenue of the month the amount which was left 
over from the previous balancing, making clear the amount of the sum 
left over from the previous period.' 

i. oioAoyio>ios : cf. [34] 9, [54] 20, and L. P. 62 [4] 13. 

8. The meaning of the paragraph depends on what these sums were 
which were not to be put down to the account of the previous month, 
but were to be carried on to the next reckoning. I conjecture that they 
were sums received between the end of the month and the day on which 
the oioAoy 107109 was held, i. e. (v ran i><[0ra>ri fzjjm. 

9. The subject of the imperatives here, as in lines 10 and 17, is 
probably the oeconomus and antigrapheus : cf. line 15 with [17] 17. 

10. For the meaning of avcupopa cf. [34] 7, [53] 24, [56] 17, pap. 
Zois i. 31 TfTa^dat TI\V TrpcoTTjv avcupopav, at 8 avatyopai frac)(6r\<Tav in an 
unpublished Petrie papyrus, and L. P. 62 [4] 4. That ava^opa refers to 
the monthly instalment of revenue payable by the tax-farmers is quite 
clear, but it is difficult to decide whether it means the actual sum paid, 
or the account of it. In spite of the two instances where rao-o-to-flai is 
used and where actual payment must be meant, and [56] 17, q.v., I think 
that ava^opa here means the account of the instalment. For the taxes 
collected were sent eiy TO /3curiAtKoi>, [28] 14 note, and the actual payments 
might be made on any day. The ava<popa seems to be the account of 
the payments during a month added together. 

11. These four lines are very difficult. biopdova-Oai, cf. [56] 15, is the 
term used for paying off the balance of the avcupopa, if it did not reach 
the required amount. It is possible that Xafiuv refers to the ju<r0os of 
the Aoyeurai, see [12] 13-16. ir[po<ro8ov] : Lumbroso. 

13. eis TO ibtov : cf. [19] 3, which shows that the tax-farmers had 
a separate, as well as a general, account with the oeconomus, and [54] 
12 note. 

16. It is not clear whether TO Ttepiov CK TOV cnavto 5ioAoyi(r/xou is 
identical with TO irfpiov TOU t-nav<a \povov in line 18, and whether one 
or both are equivalent to tTriycrrj^a in the next column, i. e. the surplus 
of the taxes actually received over the amount, or, as the ara</>opat were 
monthly, over the twelfth part of the amount which the tax-farmers had 


contracted to pay to the government. If TO vepiov refers to the same 
sum in lines 16 and 18, it means the surplus carried over from the 
previous month as distinct from the npoa-obos or receipts for the current 
month. If however, as seems probable, there is a distinction between 
TO -nfpiov in the two cases, TO -nepiov ex rou draw 8iaAoyto-/j,ou may refer to 
the sums mentioned in line 8, while TO -nepiov K TOV cnav<i) \povov would 
mean the surplus left* over when the accounts of the last month were 
settled. In either case therefore TO vcpiov CK TOU cnavca \povov probably 
means the eTriyeznj/xa ; cf. [17] 14, where it is probably used as a synonym 
for it. 

[17.] i- 1 6. 'But if the previous period has produced a deficit, while 
the next month produces a surplus, and the oeconomus receives in full 
that portion of the deficit in the farm which was not covered by surety 
. . . from the surplus . . . But if subsequently a deficit occurs in the 
farm which produced the surplus, the oeconomus shall exact payment of 
the surplus which had been transferred to another farm, from the sureties 
inscribed on the register of the farm to which the surplus was trans- 
ferred ; but first ... let him restore the surplus (?), which was transferred 
to another farm, back to the farm from which it was transferred.' 

i. Three cases are contemplated: (i) 1-5, when a period of deficit 
was followed by a period in which there was a surplus : of the course 
to be pursued by the oeconomus we are ignorant, but a balance of some 
kind must have been struck, so that the sureties were not made liable 
for the whole deficit ; (2) 6-9, when a period of surplus in one farm 
coincided with a period of deficit in another : in this case the surplus 
and deficit were allowed to balance each other, i. e. the surplus was lent 
to the farm which required it, instead of the deficit being at once made 
good by the sureties ; (3) when the period of deficit occurred in the 
farm which had produced a surplus, but had lent it to meet the deficit of 
another farm. In this case the oeconomus had first to recall the surplus 
(15-16), in order to meet the deficiency in the farm which had lent its 
surplus. By doing so he of course caused the deficit in the other farm 
to reappear, and it was therefore necessary to call upon the sureties of 
that farm to meet the deficit (13-14). Cf. for this balancing of surpluses 
against deficits L. P. 62 [6] 4-7. 

3. TO a8ieyyuoi>: apparently a deficit might be so great that the 


sureties failed to cover it. Yet in [34] 3 and [56] 15 the sureties have 
to be one-twentieth greater, presumably, than the sum due from the 
tax-farmers ; cf. L. P. 62 [1] 13, where they have to be one-tenth 
greater. The question of the sureties and their relations to the tax- 
farmers presents many difficulties, see note on [34] 4. a&icyyvov is 
apparently equivalent to aveyyvov, as there seems to be no difference 
between yyva<r0ai and Suyyvao-tfai, tyyvjjo-is and 6teyyyjjo-ts, wherever they 
occur in the Revenue papyrus, L. P. 62, and pap. Zois. 

8. Possibly (K r[ov TrcpiovTov], if TO itffnov is right in 14. 

9. The piece of a letter after ]a[ will not suit <f> ; therefore /ieTa0f/>ereo 
will not do. There is not room for Karao-TTjo-ara) or KaTa/3aAAereo. 

jo. tK [TTJS a]vr7jy is inadmissible, nor is aSteyyuou the word lost in 15. 

[17.] I7-[18] 9. 'Copies of all the balancings of accounts held by 
the oeconomus with the tax-farmers shall be sealed by him and given at 
once to each of the associates, . . . and the oeconomus also shall have 
copies which have been sealed by all those who took part in the 
balancing, . . . and he shall send the copies of the balancings every 
month to the dioecetes and eclogistes.' 

3. The letter after auros may be 17, and it is not certain that any letter 
is lost after KO, 1 hough if so, it can only be t. The word, whatever it 
is, has nothing to do with /xaprvpas. e^era) : cf. [27] 1 2. Each party 
had a copy sea'ed by the other, after the manner of modern agreements, 
as Mr. Kenyon suggests. 

6. aTrooreAAtro) : cf. [51] 22, where it is opposed to btbovai. While 
aTTooreAAeiz; implies distance, and therefore we may conclude that the 
dioecetes and eclogistes were not always accessible to the oeconomus, 
bibovai is not aiways to be taken literally, e. g. [36] 8. On the dioecetes, 
see note on [38] 3. 

9. yAoymji> : cf. [J7] 12 rots VTTO Aiow<robtopov Ttray/xcixns 6yAoyi<rraiy, 
and Tobit i. 22 'Axicix . 00 * ^ n v oivo^oos Kal tirl TOV ba.Krv\tov KOI BIOIKTJTTJV 
Kal eKAoyioTT;?. The eclogistae were accountants or paymasters, who 
probably had a central office at Alexandria controlled by Dionysodorus, 
and branch offices in the country. One of these was probably the 
AoyioTTjpiof in the Fayoum mentioned in P. P. 25, line 23, and 26, line 4. 
The simple word AoyiorTjs however is not found in the Revenue pap. or 
in the Petrie papyri, and in a papyrus of the thirtieth year of Phila- 


delphus published by Rev. R. E. 1882, p. 268, where he reads 
Qf<avi AoyeioTTji 5ia Aiowa-o6o)pou TMV 2rpara)i;os uinjpercoj;, Wilck. tells me 
that AoyeurTji is the correct reading ; cf. [8] 4 note. The eclogistae are 
not mentioned in the papyri of the next century, but cf. B. M. pap. xxiii. 
41 for the verb eyAoyieo-0ai meaning 'pay.' Later, eyAoyiorrjs is used 
for a ' tax-collector,' i. e. \o-yevrrjs ; cf. the edict of Tiberius Alexander, 
C. I. G. 4957, line 36. 

[18.] 9~[19] 4. 'When the period for which the tax was sold 
expires, the tax-farmers shall all come to the oeconomus before the 
tenth day of the following month, and he shall hold a general balancing 
of accounts with them, in which he shall state both the value of the 
revenue received, and the balance which they have still to pay, together 
with the sums which have already been reported as paid and the dates 
of the payments, and whether from the sub-letting of the farm or other 
quarters any debts are owing of which it is the duty of the oeconomus 
to exact payment, and the remainder still due, and how much is each 
tax-farmer's share of the debt ; and underneath the share of the debt he 
shall write the amount which he has received separately from them or 
the surety, with the dates of the payments, and the remainder still due ; 
but if there is a surplus, the oeconomus shall set it down to the credit of 
the tax-farmers.' 

IO. TtapecrTbMrav vpos : cf. Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 21. 7ra/>[ayei>e(T0a>0-a]v is too 

13. ycvutos Aoyos is found in papyri of the Roman period. 

i4--[19] i. o<eiAo>o-o>, deal with the collective account of the tax- 
farmers, [19] i KOI 7r<Hroz>-[l 9] 4 with the separate accounts of each tax- 
farmer with the oeconomus. Both sections may be sub-divided into 
(i) the liabilities of the tax-farmers [18] 4, corresponding to [19] i *at 
TTOO-OV cKaoroH rourcoy e7ri/3aAAei ; (2) the sums either already paid to the 
oeconomus or for the collection of which he was responsible, [18] 15-17 
Tipa^ai, corresponding to [19] 2-3 ; (3) the balance due to the oeconomus, 
[18] 17 Kcti TO \omov fav TI 7rpo(ro<eiAaKriy, corresponding to [19] 4 ecu/ ri 

Trjs irpocrobov : even where taxes were paid in kind, the accounts 
of the tax-farmers were kept in money, see [33] 2-8, [34] 7-10, and 
cf. [53] 23. 8io/>0co<rao-0cu : cf. [16] 13 and [56] 15. 


15. TOVTO apparently for TOVTO. M. suggests TJ&TJ for the lacuna. 
avcvr)vcyn<vov : cf. [11] I, [19] 5 notes. 

16. cnroirpafjiaTiav : cf. L. P. 62 [3] 17. L.'s suggestion (Rec. p. 324) 
that it refers to the sub-letting of the farms is a perfectly satisfactory 
explanation of that passage, but if a-no^pa^a is right here and has the 
same meaning, it is curious that there should be no other reference to 
this subject in A, mutilated though these columns are. 

[19] 3. eyyvov : the singular, because each tax-farmer had only one 
surety ; see P. P. xlvi, where Theotimus is surety for Philip, and pap. 
Zois, where Thanoubis is surety for Dorion. The uvai which were sold 
separately for each nome, see L. P. [1] i, [57] 12, 14, [60] 23, &c., were 
subdivided among the different members of the company, each of them 
being especially responsible for a district, cf. [54] 12 note, though the 
whole company was liable for the failure of one of its members, L. P. 
62 [6] 14-15. 

4. irpoo-o^eiATjt : if this is right, the letters must have been very 
cramped. The subject is not the eyyvoy, but the tax-farmer. 

cTnypa\lraT<t) : here the oeconomus only credits the surplus to the tax- 
farmers ; cf. [34] 14, where the payment is made through the royal 
bank. But from line 9 it appears that the payment is authorized by 
the dioecetes. 

[19.] 5-16. 'The oeconomus shall report ... to the dioecetes; and 
the dioecetes shall examine his books to see whether there is a surplus 
in the receipts from the other farms ; and if there is a surplus due from 
him to other farms, he shall balance the arrears against this surplus, 
but, if there is nothing due from him to other farms, he shall order the 
oeconomus to exact the arrears and pay them over to him when the 
collection of arrears takes place. The oeconomus shall pay the arrears 
to the dioecetes within three days, or, if he fails to pay them over on 
demand, he shall be fined three times the amount, and the dioecetes 
shall exact the payment from the oeconomus, . . .' 

5. arcrcyjcaTO) : cf. P. P. 47. 9, and 122. 5 avevryKotufv CTTI TOV 8ioiKJjrrji>, 
in both cases meaning 'report,' not 'pay,' and [11] 7. 

12. irpoo-o^eiXerat : i.e. the tax-farmer; cf. lines i and 4. 
e7TiAoyuo-is : cf. 01 e7riAoy;0-ai>rj [6] 2 note. While the oeconomus 
was responsible for the payment of arrears not only from the tax- 



farmers but in some cases from the tax-payers ([18] 16-17), this is not 
inconsistent with supposing that the actual collection of the arrears 
from the tax-payers was in the hands of 01 eTriAoyeuo-avres : see note on 
[30] 5- 

15. eio"7rpaaTa> : i.e. from the oeconomus, not from the debtor; cf. 
[41] 12. 

[20.] 1-12. 'Any tax-farmers who fail to balance their accounts with 
the oeconomus, when he desires them to do so and summons them for 
the purpose, shall pay 30 minae to the Treasury and the oeconomus 
shall at the same time compel them to balance the account . . . The 
oeconomus shall also give to each of the sureties an account of his 
balance, stating that the surety has paid what he owed. If the oeco- 
nomus when asked fails to give the account on the same day or the one 
following, he shall render himself liable to proceedings for malversation. 
Balancings of accounts shall be held in the same manner by all officials 
who shall put up to auction any of the Crown revenues.' 

3. Though re is written above eis TO, it ought strictly to come after 
cuioTivfTOMrav, unless a second fine has been lost. 

1 1. iravres : see note on [14] 4. 

[20.] i3~[21] i. 'Concerning contracts. With respect to all con- 
tracts made by the oeconomi or antigrapheis or their agents, being 
officials of the Crown, in matters connected with . . ., the officials shall 
not exact any payment from the tax-farmers for the contracts or 

13. Cf. [30] 5 {J.f]Tf aAXot nap avratv 01 irpayfj.aTV<roiJ.voi, x.r.A.. 

15. Possibly is TOVS Aoyou? ; there is scarcely room for s rouy 
SiaAoytcr^ous. Though ]us is doubtful, ]is or coi>]as is impossible. The 
meaning of this section, as was suggested by L., is that the government 
officials were not to charge the tax-farmers anything for drawing up or 
sealing the contracts and receipts. 

[21.] 2-9. ' Concerning wages . . . the appointed antigrapheis shall 
pay instead of them . . . but the additional penalties which have been 
decreed shall be exacted from the outgoing tax-farmers, unless the 
antigrapheis are discovered to have connived at the fraud with them.' 

2. The spaced and enlarged letters indicate that the word is a 


heading, and therefore cannot be taken with the preceding genitives. 
Though the r is rather doubtful, no other compound of epyov except 
Kartpyov occurs in the papyrus. Cf. [45] 8 and [55] 15, where it means 
wages for piece-work. Lines 4-9 are not inconsistent with such a heading ; 
cf. ra owTfTay/biei'a with [55] 10 ro avvreraypfvov jiepi<r0ai, and 01 Karaora- 
0rrs with [3] 2 and [12] 12. 

7. Cf. [8] 1-2, from which I have conjectured eurTrpcunreotfuxray, though 
it is rather long for the lacuna. 

[21.] io-[22] 7. 'Times for appeal. When disputes arise out of 
the laws concerning tax-farming, the Crown officials may bring an 
action . . . when they choose, but when disputes arise out of the laws 
concerning tax-farming, and a different time for appeal has been ap- 
pointed in each law, the Crown officials may bring an action, both in the 
period for which the revenues have been sold and in the next three 
months, unless one of the associates or subordinates connected with the 
tax- farming is discovered after the three months have elapsed to have 
peculated . . .' 

10. (KK\r)Toi \povoi : cf. Dio Cass. 51. 19 KK\rjrov biKafav, and 52, 22 
ras 8tKa?, ras re CKK\I')TOVS Kal ray avaTrop.Trifj.ovs . . . 

11. vofj.<av Tf\<i)VLK<)v : cf. line 14 and Dem. 732. i. M. however objects 
to i>ofio>i> here, and suggests p.fv rovruv in line 12, referring to the word 
lost here. But the phrase is certain in line 14. 

As L. acutely observed, vo^oi TCA.OWKOI is really the title of A. 
Moreover that throughout the Revenue papyrus we have the laws of 
Philadelphus, i. e. the TTOAITIKOI ro/moi of Pap. Taur. i. [7] 9, is shown, as 
he remarked, by the various cross-references from one section to another 
as rojzos. See (i) [25] 15 Kara TOV vopov, i.e. the preceding section: 
(2) [26] 7 icara TOV vop.ov, i.e. [26] 15: (3) [29] 10 KaOairep tv ran i>o/ian 
yeypaTmu, i. e. in [27] : (4) [30] 6 and 9 Kara rov vo^ov, i. e. [24]-[30] : 
(5) [^2] 28 KaOaittp fv ton VO/IOH yeypaTmu, i.e. [52] 17-18. In [4] 8, 
[20] 6, and [21] 3, there are also cross-references which, owing to the 
lacunae, cannot be verified. Cf. also [57] i and the crowning instance 
[80] 2 where there is the heading ro^o? 8eKar[o>i>?]. It was therefore 
a series of documents like the Revenue papyrus, to which L. P. 62 [1] 6 
referred, Kara TOUS vopovs KOI ra irpoo-raynara KOI ra 8taypa/njiara xai TO 
8iop0a>jx0a (i.e. 8u>p0a>/Aara). For besides vopoi, there are examples of 

N 2 


the other three in the Revenue papyrus ; see [39] 1-7 biaypa^a, [37] 
2-8 Trpooray/xa, and [57] I sqq., 8iop0o>/ia. 

15. The first word is not KV/HOS, for no letter which reaches far below 
the line is admissible. It is just possible that vop.(av in this line means 
* nomes,' but it is very unlikely, both on account of the context and 
because we should in that case expect v e/caorcoi VOJUOH : cf. [53] 5> 
1 8, &c. 

[22.] 2. \ri<j)0r): if this conjecture is correct, the i adscript is omitted, 
a rare occurrence in this century. But see [44] 16 amyayrj, [47] 9 Troir/, 
[40] 8 Kara/3A.a/3rj. It is noticeable that all the cases are the 3rd person 
singular of the subjunctive. 

3. M. suggests t'oo-^io-ajue^oj : cf. [27] 10. 

4. This line is perhaps the protasis to which 5-7 are the apodosis. 
The rest of the column is blank. 

[23.] i. There is a foot of blank papyrus between this column and 
the one preceding, so that this note refers to B, not to A. Cf. [38], 
a similar entry prefixed by the same writer to C, and notes ad loc. 
There is little doubt that [23] refers to the revision of B in the office 
of Apollonius, the dioecetes of the Fayoum, though the few mistakes 
which occur are not corrected, and the only change is the insertion of 
[31] 21-25 ; cf. note on [48] 9. 

[24.] 1-2. ' In the reign of Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy, and the son 
of Ptolemy, the twenty-seventh year.' 

2. For the formula cf. [1] i, P. P. xxiv, and M.'s and my corrections 
in P. P. App. pp. 5-6. In line 4 of that papyrus 0e[<o]z; afaXQvv is 
right. For the various meanings attached to the uios FlroXe^aiou see 
Rev. R. E. i. i ; Krall, Sitzungsb. Wien. Akad. 105, 1884, p. 347 sqq.; 
Wiedemann, Rhein. Mus. 1883, pp. 384-393 ; and Philol. 1888. pp. 81-91 ; 
Wilck. on Arsinoe Philadelphus in Pauly- Wissowa's Encyc. ; and Introd. 
p. xix. sqq. ? where M. propounds a new explanation for the disappear- 
ance of Euergetes' name from the formula after the twenty-seventh year, 
a fact already known from demotic ostraca, see Rev. Proc. Soc. Bibl. 
Arch. 1885, p. 138. 

[24.] 4-1 3. ' They shall receive for the tax on vineyards from . . . 
the sixth part of the wine produced, and from the . . . and the soldiers 


who have planted vineyards . . ., and owners of land in the Thebaid, 
which requires special irrigation, or of land . . . the tenth part of the 
wine. For the tax on orchards in accordance with the method of 
valuation (hereinafter described) they shall receive the sixth part of the 
produce in silver.' 

4-10 deal with the cnro/xotpa (see [125] 12, [27] 17, &c.) from vineyards, 
which was generally a sixth, but in the case of the favoured classes in 
5-9 a tenth part of the produce, and was paid under ordinary circum- 
stances in kind, but sometimes in money, see [31] ; while the airo/xoipa 
from 7rapa5<roi, 11-13, was in all cases a sixth, and was always paid in 

5. Possibly K[aroiK(or, but this term has not yet been found in papyri 
of the third century B.C. K [Xrjpovx^v (cf. [36] 12) is not likely, as they 
arc probably the persons meant in the next line. 

6. The absence of TOOV before TOU[ shows that Tre^trtuKoreoy and 
(TTpaTvofji(v<i>v refer to one and the same class of owners, and the tense 
of Ttf<pvTfVKOT<av points to the land not having been cultivated before. 
Therefore, accepting Prof. Petrie's theory that the K\ripov%oi in the 
Fayoum received land reclaimed from the lake, I think that the cleruchs 
of P. P. are included in this class, if not directly referred to by it. 
Perhaps rov[s /JamAi/cous], cf. [36] 13, or even rov[s cv TTJI Ai/^rji], cf. [69] 
5 note. But I think that M. is hardly justified (see Introd. p. xxxix) in 
using the fact that the Revenue papyrus comes from the Fayoum as an 
argument for supposing that only the cleruchs of P. P. are meant here. The 
Revenue papyrus gives the law for the whole of Egypt, and is not more 
concerned with the Fayoum than with any other nome. In any case 
this passage strongly confirms Wilcken's theory (G. G. A. 1895, no. 2, 
p. 132) that the cleruchs in P. P. were, at any rate nominally, active 
soldiers, and not mere pensioners : cf. P. P. xxxi. 5-6. 

8. e7rairr\TjTTjy : i. e. land on the edge of the desert, out of reach of the 
inundation, and irrigated probably by the sakiyeh, or wheel with buckets 
attached. Cf. Diodorus' (i. 34) description of the KoyKias. 

9. dtoiKctrou is clearly opposed to itportpov SitoiKeiro, but the sense 
depends on the word lost in the lacuna. Cf. [37] 13, where 01 bioiKovvres 

are ' land agents," opposed to ' landlords ' and ' tenants.' 

: cf. App. II (i) i, where 2i/*api<rrou is followed by the 
fraction for one-fourth, and then bta ypafAjzar<[o>v. Underneath are two 


columns, one of dates, the other of figures, which, to judge by the 
fractions, refer to artabae, as Wilck. pointed out to me. The quarter 
in question is probably a tax, cf. K for CIKOOTOV in P. P. 151. 15, and the 
amounts are large, showing that the tax was an important one. The 
occurrence of the form rTaxcovs in that papyrus is, according to Wilck., 
in favour of assigning it to the earlier rather than to the later part of the 
third century B.C., so that it is probably nearly contemporary with the 
Revenue papyrus. But the meaning of St^apiorou is equally obscure in 
both cases, though it is probably a proper name, for a Simaristus who 
wrote a treatise ' on Synonyms ' is frequently mentioned by Athenaeus, 
e ' 8- 99 c - M. suggests that here it is the name of a god. 

10. bfKarrjv : cf. P. P. xliii (d) where the heading of a tax list on 
produce of vineyards, palm groves and fruit trees, i.e. a-no^oipa, is ejcrr/s 
KOI Se/carr;?, and see note on line 13. Elsewhere when the amount of the 
tax on the produce of vineyards is stated, it is always a sixth, cf. [37] 
19 note. It appears that while the tax of a sixth was a legacy from the 
time when the a-no^oipa was paid to the temples, the payment of a tenth 
by certain favoured classes was a change instituted by the government ; 
[33] 21 note, and [36] 18. 

11. Perhaps u7royeypa/x]jitVT;s or viro/eei^a;*}?. In any case the refer- 
ence is probably to [29], q. v. There is no other instance in the 
papyrus of such a spelling as efwn/zTjo-ecos for e*c (rwri^o-ecos. 

1 2. Trpos apyvpiov is opposed not only to payment in kind, which is 
allowed in the previous section concerning vineyards, but to payment in 
copper, cf. [40] 10 irpos \O.\KOV and App. Ill, and notes on line 13 and 
[37] 19. 

13. Perhaps ragova-iv or n/ATjo-oimj;. The subject may be either the 
tax-farmers or the government officials. 

As the reader will have noticed in Introd. p. xxxiii, Mr. Mahaffy and 
I differ as to the meaning of TrapaSeio-oi. He thinks that their produce 
was only grapes, while I think that palm trees and fruit trees of all kinds 
are meant. The distinction everywhere drawn between ajxTreAcove? and 
TrapaSeioroi, especially in the mode of valuation and taxation, cf. [29], 
seems to me hardly accountable, if wine was obtainable from irapaSeto-oi. 
Why should the government insist on money-payment of the tax on 
wine produced in irapotdeio-oi, but not on wine produced from apirf Atones ? 
On the other hand if the produce of 7rapa8eto-oi was miscellaneous, the 


reason for the difference is obvious. The wine would keep, but fruit 
would not, and therefore the government required the tax to be paid 
in money. With regard to the araftcvftpav (cf. Introd. /. .), a single 
instance of this mode of culture in the Fayoum does not seem to me 
to justify the supposition that it was universal in the rest of the country. 
The Fayoum, then as now, contained an unusual number of trees ; and 
since the a7ro/iot/-a was a tax on produce, not on land ([33] 13 note), there 
is no difficulty in supposing that wine obtained from avabfvbpabts, the 
amount of which I believe to have been very small, was included in the 
wine obtained from ajxTreAoorej. Secondly, Mr. Mahaffy adduces the 
contrast drawn between -napabaa-os and KTJTTOS in P. P. xxii, the contrast 
between 7rapa5ei<ros and <poivtK<i>v in P. P. xxxix (/'), and the mention of 
fUKTjuqparov in P. P. xliv. As in P. P. xxii. I have made a number of 
corrections, I give the important part, line 4 sqq. fav 8 rty irapa TO.VTO. 
Kptvrn t] KpiOrji aKVpa eoru) tav ffx/Srji /Sous TJ virovyiov TJ itpofiaTov T) oAXo TI 

[ jvov s aXXorpiov K\r]pov 17 irapabturov TJ K^TTOV 77 ap.-ne\<ava rj 

77 cara/3Acn|nji aTroreio-arco o Kvpios TOH (3\a(pd(i>Ti TO /3Aa/3os o av 
\a\l/r)i CK Kpurfcas irpo Kpi<T(u>s 5e /jtrjfleis fvrxypa&Ttt) /jtrj8e a.TTofiia(ird<a 
irap(vprti /xTjSe/xtat (av 5f ri9 rourcoy TI 7r[oi]Tjg-Tji (?) airoTetaaTto Trapa 
\- 'A. The distinction drawn between irapabcia-os and KT/TTOS does 
not militate against my theory, for if as I think the irapaSeio-oi contained 
palms and fruit trees, the KTJTTOI may have contained vegetables and 
flowers. P. P. xxxix (/) however seems at first sight to contradict it, 
for whether this taxing list refers to attop.oipa or, as I think is more 
probable, to <popos (see note on [33] 13), (poiviKawcs are distinguished from 
nrapaScio-oi. But cf. P. P. xliii (#), where Wilck. has made an important 
rectification, showing that xliii (a) 24-44 really belong to the bottom of 
xliii (d). There seems to me to be no doubt that the tax in xliii (6) is 
the airo/zoipa, see notes on line 10 above, [31] 16, and on [33] 13, yet in 
addition to a/iTreXtores we have a*po8va and </>oiznca>res mentioned, but no 
TTapabfKroi. Now if the tax on afi-n-cAcore? is here the aTro/xoipa, it is 
necessary to suppose on Mr. Mahaflfy's theory that the 7rapa5cio-ot have 
for some reason been omitted, and that <poiviK<avs and aicpobva, which 
have no right to be there, have been inserted instead. But if TrapaJeio-os 
is a general term including both <J>OIVIK<DVCS and axpoSua, the omission of 
irapafouros in xliii (b) is explained, and even the difficulty in xxxix (f) 
disappears. If a person had only palm trees he paid the tax on palms, 


if he had only fruit trees he paid on fruit trees, cf. CKTTJ anpobvuv in 
a Ptolemaic ostracon, Wilck. Ostr. 1278. Trapabci<ros being a wider term 
includes both. Cf. P. P. xxvii (i), in which a man pays the sixth in 
kind on wine and in money on axpobva, oreQavoi, which must mean 
flowers, and another word which is lost. There can be little doubt that 
this tax too is the aTro^oipa, and that the sixth paid in money means the 
tax on TrapaSeio-oi. This leads to the remaining difficulty, the absence of 
any enumeration of the different kinds of produce, which are on my 
theory classed together under the general term 7ra/m8eio-oi. But the 
government did not fix the amounts to be grown or even the assessment 
of the crop, see [29]. The oeconomus looked on while the tax-farmer 
and tax-payer fought the question out, and was certain to get the full 
amount of the tax in any case, [31] 14 note. Nor can I see any difficulty 
in the use of nap-nos in [29] 13 as a general term for the different varieties 
of produce. There seems to be no special reason for enumerating the 
different kinds, since the word irapabeia-os, however obscure to us, must 
have been perfectly intelligible to the people for whom the law was 
written. But we are at liberty to suppose that a complete list was 
given at the top of [29] which is lost, though I do not think that this 
supposition is necessary, cf. [36] 6 note. That TrapaSeto-oi contained 
(froiviKcaves, aKpoftva, and ore</>cu;oi seems to me certain from the instances 
in the Petrie papyri quoted above, and it is possible that \a\ava, 
1 vegetables,' were also included ; cf. B. M. pap. cxix of the second 
century A. D., a taxing list on a/A7reA.oi (so Wilck. for anavBa), anpobva, 
Xa^ava, and tyoiviKtaves, a classification very like the Ptolemaic, and note 
on [37] 19 for an instance of a7rojuoi/ra in the Roman period. 

[24.] i4-[25] 3. ' Concerning the gathering and collection of the 
vintage. Let the cultivators gather the produce when the season comes, 
and when they begin to gather it, let them give notice to the manager of 
the farm or tax-farmer ; and if he wishes to inspect the vineyards, let 
them exhibit them to him.' 

From this point to [29] i the subject is the tax on vineyards, as is 
shown by the numerous references to wine, and by the tax being paid 
in kind. The tax on orchards is discussed in [29] ; [30]-[33] 8 revert to 
the tax on vineyards ; [33] 9~[35] are general. 

15. yea>/>y<n are 'cultivators' in the widest sense, whatever their 


position in the scale of society may be; cf. [29] 2, 15, where one 
of 01 irapaof itrous K(Krr]^(i>oi is a yo>pyos. The word for the ' fellaheen ' 
is Xaoi, [42] 16. 

17. Though o bioiKw is here distinguished from o c\u>v rrjv wrrjv, if 
that be the right conjecture, the distinction is one of names, not of 
persons : cf. [42] 8, where o SIOIKCOJ; is identical with o t\<av. The fact 
seems to be that 01 r;yopaKors or ayopao-avTes, ot -apia^fvoi, 01 %ovrs, 01 
bioiKovvrcs, ot TrpayjxaTfuo/mereu are mere synonyms for TAo>vcu, a term 
which only occurs in [28] 9 and [29] 8, perhaps, as M. suggests, because 
it was unpopular. Where the singular of any of these expressions is 
used, the ' tax-farmer,' whether ap^vtis or jxeroxoy, is generally meant. 
Sometimes however one of them is equivalent to apxvvris, e.g. [34] 
10-14, where o T/yopaKooy, o ex^, and ap^vr^s are interchanged. 

[25.] i. /3ov\op.cvov : if the tax-farmer did not come, the y*a>pyoi 
might take matters into their own hands, [30] 4-13. 

irt[8eu> : cf. P. P. xxiii (2) 3 ((ptbuv TOV (nropov. An example of 
notice being given in accordance with this regulation is P. P. xl (b), 
a letter from Dorotheus to Theodorus, no doubt a tax-farmer, ywixnce /ie 


3. Probably the end of a regulation fixing the penalty in case the 
failed to give notice to the tax-farmer. 

[25.] 4-16. 'When the cultivators wish to make wine, they shall 
summon the tax-farmer in the presence of the oeconomus and anti- 
grapheus or their agent, and when the tax-farmer comes, let the culti- 
vator make wine, and measure it by the measures in use at each place, 
after they have been tested and sealed by the oeconomus and anti- 
grapheus ; and in accordance with the result of the measuring let him 
pay the tax. If the cultivators disobey the law in any of these 
particulars, they shall pay the tax-farmers twice the amount of the tax.' 

7. irapa-y(vofjL(vov ; sc. TOV OIOIKOVVTOS ; see [30] 13. 

8. /icrpois : the utmost variety in respect of measures of capacity is 
found in Ptolemaic Egypt. Hence the necessity, when metretae or 
artabae were mentioned, to specify which metretes or artaba was meant ; 
see [31] 6, [3 ( J] 2, [40] n. The variations were not only between the 
measures commonly used in different places, which are referred to here, 
but also between different measures used in the same place, as is shown 



by the ever-recurring formula in Ptolemaic and even later contracts for 
loans of wheat, airo8i5oToo .... jxtrpaH an Kai TrapeiAr/^ei;. 

10. efrraa-ufvois : cf. [40] 19 and Leyden pap. Q, a receipt, as Wilcken 
has pointed out, for the Kepa/iioi> (i. e. aTro/uoipa) TT/I, not TCOI, <iXa8eA$coi. 
No special So/ci/xaorrjs is mentioned in the Revenue Papyrus, as there. 

[26.] i-io. 'Those persons who already possess instruments for 
making wine, shall register themselves before the tax-farmer, when . . . 
and when they intend to make wine, they shall exhibit the seal which 
has been stamped upon the instruments, unbroken. Any person who 
fails to register himself, or to produce his instruments for inspection as 
the law requires, or to bring them to be sealed up when the tax-farmer 
wishes to seal them, or to exhibit the seal stamped upon them, shall 
pay to the tax-farmers the amount of the loss which the tax-farmers 
consider at the moment that they have incurred.' 

i. Cf. [49] 10-13 an d [50] 2 1 -[51] ii, parallel regulations concerning 
the opyava for making oil. 

4. Perhaps orav oivo-nomv jAeAAo>o-i]i;, cf. [25] 4. 

7. TrapaoxppayioTXoy : cf. [51] 3, 8, and [46] II Trapaa-cppaytCfa-daxrav TO. 
opyava TOV apyov TOV \povov, which explains this passage. Trapao-tppayioyio? 
and 7rapao-<payie<r0<u are used for sealing up something, i. e. putting it 
aside for the time : cf. [54] 18 and [57] 23. 

10. Cf. [51] ii and [55] 24, where the tax-farmers are allowed to 
demand as much compensation as they like ; but see also [56] 13, where 
the tables are turned upon them. 

[26.] 11-17. 'If tne cultivators gather the vintage and make wine 
before the tax-farmer comes, let them (keep ?) the wine at the vats or 
. . ., and when they hear (?) the first notice of the auction announced in 
the town or village in which they live, they shall register themselves on 
the same day or the one following, and shall exhibit the wine which 
they have made, and the vineyard from which they have gathered the 
crop prematurely.' 

1 2. Faint traces of what are about the fourth and fifth letters of the 
first word are visible, and they will not suit o-$payieo-0c><rai>, airoTiOfvduxrav, 
or KOfju^eToxrav. bfi^Kv^yroxrav would be consistent with them, but does 
not suit the context. 

13. I have taken TO -npiarov ex^e/xa as referring to the proclamation of 


he highest bid on the first day of the auction by which the a-no^oipa was 
sold, and suggest itapay[-yt\(v 7rv0a>]i/Tai, since op(o]vrai. is not satisfactory. 
This is a mere guess, but for K0/xa and Ti0rj/xi in the sense of procla- 
mation of a bid see [48] 16 and probably [33] 10 ; cf. P. P. 44. 20, L. P. 
62 [8] 2 and 10. The length of time during which the taxes were put 
up to auction is not stated in any part of the Revenue Papyrus which is 
preserved, but in the next century it was ten days, L. P. [8] u, and in 
[48] 1 6, at the auction held by the contractors for the oil monopoly, ten 
days are the period. If tc0e/*a means ' proclamation ' or ' edict ' generally, 
without reference to the auction, it is difficult to see what irpatrov 
refers to. 

1 5- KCITOIKOWI : cf. L. P. 63. 1 OO T<av (V rats Keo/xais icaroiKovi>Ta>j; Aaa>*>. 
: SC. irpos TOV (\oirra nqv (avyv, cf. [27] 9. 

[26.] i8-[28] i. 'Agreements . . . The tax-farmer shall seal the 
copy of the agreement and give it to the cultivator. In the agreement 
the tax-farmer shall declare under the royal oath that he has entered in 
the agreement the full amount of the* produce, including all wine made 
prematurely and reported to him by the cultivator, and has not pecu- 
lated any of it, nor let it out of his possession. The other agreement, 
after it has been sealed by the cultivator, shall be kept by the oeconomus 
or his representative ; and in this agreement the cultivator shall declare 
under the royal oath that he has exhibited all the produce, and reported 
all the wine made before the proper time, and has honestly entered in 
the agreement the (due) amount of the tax. And there shall in addition 
be copies of both agreements, which shall not be sealed.' 

5. There were two separate o-vyypa<pai (cf. [29] 9, [42] 15 8i7rAji>), one 
written by the tax-farmer, of which the original was no doubt kept by 
the oeconomus, cf. line 1 2, and a sealed copy was given to the cultivator, 
while the other was written by the cultivator, and kept by the oeco- 
nomus ; and there were besides unsealed copies of the second (rvyypa<prj t 
of which one was no doubt kept by the tax-farmer, another by the 
cultivator, perhaps also of the first (rvyypcKpri, of which one might be 
required for the tax-farmer. 

6. For examples of the /3a<ri\tKos O^KOS see Wilck. Akt. no. xi ; P. P. 
xlvi (a) ; a demotic papyrus in Rev. Nouv. Chrest. Dem. p. 155 (cf. note 
on [39] 8) ; and probably App. ii (2). 

O 2 


7. Ttav TO. : a mistake for TIO.V TO, cf. line 15. The few blunders made 
by the writer of [24]-[35] are not corrected : but see [31] 17. 

I J. KaTcnrpoiffrdai : cf. [40] 5 irpotfa-dai e* rrjs KCO/XTJ?. 

TTJV frcpav : P. P. xxvii (a) and xxx (e) are examples of this (ruyypa</>rj, 
in which payment is made in wine, cf. [31] 16 note, though there is no 
royal oath. 

13. (rvvaiTf(rTa\p.fvos : i. e with the tax-farmer; so in [42] 20. 
1 8. a-vv was deciphered by Wilck. from the very faint traces. 

[28.] 5-8. ' But if the tax-farmer and the cultivator have a dispute, 
the one saying that the produce is more, the other that it is less, the 
occonomus shall decide the question, and the agreements shall be sealed 
in accordance with his decision.' 

5. Cf. [29] 1 2 sqq. the parallel regulation for irapabcta-ot. 

9-16. 'If the tax-farmer fails to make an agreement with the 
cultivator, when the cultivator wishes him to do so, he shall not exact 
payment of the tax. But the oeconomus and antigrapheus shall make 
an agreement with the cultivator, and having conveyed the requisite 
amount of wine to the royal repository, shall enter it as having been 
received, but shall not put down the value of it to the credit of the tax- 

10. Quite a different meaning is obtained by taking j3ov\oij.vov with 
what follows, and referring it not to the cultivator but to the tax-farmer, 
but this suits neither the construction nor the context. The other 
explanation is much more satisfactory, that lines 15-16 are the punish- 
ment which the tax-farmers incur, if they fail to come to an agreement 
with the cultivator. 

12. 01 6e o: cf. [12] i. 

14. TO /3a(rtAtKoi> : a perfectly general term, comprehending all places 
where taxes were kept : see Rev. R. E. vii. 90. When the taxes were 
in money, TO fiacnXiKov is equivalent to the /fao-iAi*?/ Tpcurffr ; cf. Wilck. 
Akt. p. 49, and [31] 16. But taxes in kind were taken to vnobo^ia, 
[31] 2, 19, and [50] 8 ; or Ta/xieia, P. P. 108. 5 ; or 6r)<ravpot., W. Ostraca 

709) 725- 

1 6. TI/XTJI;. The wine was sold before the 8iaAoyio>ios took place, 
[33] 2-8 and [34] 10. Hence the accounts were kept in money, cf. 
[18] 14, and App. ii (5). 


V7roAoyiTa><raj> : cf. P. P. 14. 3 trrroAoyrjrrai 619 ra aAtxa; P. P. 84. IS 
U7roAoyrj(ra (sic) ts TOZ> TTJS ACUKT/S Aoyop TO 9 </>operpov ; and [34] 6, 
[53] 23 viroAoyi0-0Tj<rTai 

[28.] i7-[29] i. 'Against confusion of produce. If the tax-farmers 
mingle taxable produce with produce exempt from taxation, as if it 
belonged to this class, . . .' 

17. Cf. L. P. 62 [ft] 15 for ar f Aticu wrongly awarded by the tax- 
farmers, and [15] 12 note. 

[29.] 2-21. ' Owners of orchards shall register themselves before the 
tax-farmer and the local agent of the oeconomus and antigrapheus, 
stating their names, the village in which they live, and the sum at which 
they assess the revenue from the produce in their orchard. If the tax- 
farmer consent to the assessment, they shall (make) a double agreement 
with him, sealed, as the law requires, and the oeconomus shall exact the 
sixth in accordance with the terms of it But if the tax-farmer object 
to the assessment, he shall be allowed to seize the crop, and shall pay 
the cultivator by instalments from what is sold from day to day ; and 
when the cultivator has recovered the amount at which he assessed his 
crop, the surplus shall belong to the tax-farmer, and the cultivator shall 
pay the sixth to the oeconomus. On the other hand, if the crop when 
sold does not reach the amount of the assessment, the oeconomus shall 
exact the deficit from the tax-farmer . . .' 

2. Cf. [33] 19 ; but, apart from my conjecture in line 7, the fact that 
here the tax is a sixth and is paid to the oeconomus direct, and therefore 
in money, cf. [24] 12 and [31] 16, makes it certain that the tax on 
i, not on vineyards, is meant, and that this column describes the 
referred to in [24] n. 

6. rifjuovrai : middle not passive, cf. [56] 6, for the cultivators made 
their own assessment, which the tax-farmers might accept or reject. Cf. 
[42] 17, where n/xarcu is probably passive. 

7. Cf. [39] 1 6 TifATjs Tr/9 cv TOH 8iaypa/*jian yfypafi/zeio/s, from which it 
might be conjectured that irapa[ is the beginning of some word meaning 
'law' or 'edict.' But (i) there is no room for yfypa/i/iem/s ; (2) if irapa 
be the beginning of irapa[ypapi/Aari or some such word, the reference is to 
something not contained in the papyrus, which is very unlikely, especially 
as [24] 1 1-13 so far from explaining this passage probably refers to it for 


explanation ; (3) the fact that the tax-farmer could reject the assessment 
if he chose implies that it had only been provisionally fixed Hence, in 
spite of the difficulty of the phrase, I prefer TT\V irpovobov TTJV tv root 
7rapa8eio-a>i. This use of -777300-0805, meaning the land from which the 
Ttpon-obos was derived, may be compared with the use of COVTJ in [30] 4, 
[32] 4, and [34] 9 for the land, the tax on which was farmed. 

1. SurArjz; : see note on [27] 5. 

12. Cf. [28] 5-8. The exercise of the tax-farmer's right to seize the 
crop was purely voluntary : cf. P. P. part I. xvi (2), where a yecopyos 
makes an agreement with the oeconomus and topogrammateus to pay 
part of the tax on his 7rapa8ei(rot, but refers the rest, irepi eoi> aimAeyco, to 
a certain Asclepiades; and P. P. xxvii (i), where the yetopyos, after 
stating his assessment of the produce from his vineyard, fruit trees, &c., 
says fai' 8 e7ri[y>Tj|ua] (Wilck.) yemjrai 7rpoo-ai>oi<ra> p.[era] yjELpoypafyias opKov 

17. TTJV fKTqv: presumably on the correct assessment. 

19. Trpa^aro) : sc. the difference between the real value of the crop 
and the, tax-farmer's valuation of it, not the tax, which must have been 
paid by the cultivator as before. exTreo-jji is very doubtful, and there is 
room for another letter in the lacuna. 

[30.] 3-19. 'If the tax-farmers fail either to come in person or to 
send representatives to carry out duly all the requirements of the law, or 
in any other way hinder the cultivators when giving notice, or summoning 
the tax-farmer, or paying the tax in accordance with the law, the culti- 
vators shall be allowed in the presence of the agent of the oeconomus 
and antigrapheus, as the law prescribes the presence of these two 
officials when payments are made, full power of action, without in- 
curring any penalty by so doing. But when the tax-farmer comes, 
they shall show him the produce and bring evidence at once to prove 
that they have done all that was required, and the agent of the oeconomus 
and antigrapheus shall give the tax-farmer a written account both of the 
produce and of the tax, cultivator by cultivator.' 

i. From [30] to [33] 8 the subject reverts to the tax on vineyards. 

5. 7rpay/xarei;[o-oju,evoi] : Wilck. In this class would be included the 
Aoyeurcu and vTrrjperat, mentioned so often in A ; cf. [56] 1 8 and [52] 20, 
27. Elsewhere in B and C the subordinate officials of the CDVJJ are not 


distinguished from 01 irptantvot. Similarly the oeconomus could have 
performed in person only a small part of the duties assigned to him ; 
the rest must have been done by his agents. 

9. (oy ytypairrai : i. e. in [25] 6. 

10. irapowwv TOVTW : cf. P. P. ix, a petition from two peasants to 
Theodorus, asking him to write to Theodorus the oeconomus, in order 
that they may receive permission eis opyws p TO yivoptvov narayayav is 
TO vnobo\tov. 

12. cKoora iroiciy : to gather the crop, make wine, and pay the 

13. aCnfjuov^: this refers to the penalty fixed in [25] 15. 

15. ira[pax/"W*a] : Wilcken. 

17. ypa\l/avTts boTaxrav: the plural is a mistake, as only one person is 
meant, see line u and [46] 8, [47] 10, &c. Cf. [55] 22 for a precisely 
similar error. 

[30.] 20-[31] 1 6. 'Transport of the tax. The cultivators shall 
transport the due amount of wine to the royal repository ... (if any 
of them fail to do so) he shall pay the tax-farmers the value of the tax 
which he owes them. This value is in Libya, the Saite, . . . polite, 
Prosopite, Athribite nomes, the district round Menelaus, and the Delta, 
. . drachmae for each metretes of eight choes ; in the Sebennyte, Busi- 
rite, Mendesian, Leontopolite, Sethroite, Pharbacthite nomes, Arabia, 
the Bubastite nome and Bubastus, the Tanite, the Memphite nome, 
with Memphis, the Letopolite, Hermopolite, Oxyrrhyncite and Cyno- 
polite nomes, the Lake district, the Heracleopolite and Aphroditopolite 
nomes, six drachmae for each metretes ; and in the Thebaid five 
drachmae. The oeconomus shall exact the different values from the 
cultivators and pay them over to the Treasury to the credit of the 

[30.] 21. The connexion between this line and the adaeratio of the 
next column is probably that the cultivators had to bring the cwro/zoipa 
to the vTToboxta (though see [31] 19 note), within a fixed time, under pain 
of being compelled to pay the money equivalent if they failed to do so. 
This explains both cnroTu>Ta> in [31] 2, which always implies paying 
as punishment of some sort, and ero<eiAoi>/zcjnjs, which implies that the 
payment was in arrear. 


[31.] 4. rtjUTji' : the figure in line 13 might be 8, but it is more 
likely that the scale is a descending than an ascending one, and 9 is 
much more probable. Here therefore the figure is probably greater 
than 6. 

On the value of wine in this century, see (i) P. P. Introd. p. 32, 
where the price of \ x ovs ' ls 5 obols, and therefore the price of a metretes 
at the same rate would be 13 drachmae 2 obols ; (2) App. ii. (5), where 
the prices of a metretes vary between 5 and u drachmae -npos xoAicoi;, 
the average being between 7 and 8, i. e. nearly 7 silver drachmae, see 
App. iii ; and (3) L. P. 60 (bis) 15-16, of the third century B.C., where 
the price of 16 cotylae is 6 drachmae, and in the next line n cotylae 
at (ava) i\ obols each are worth 4 drachmae and f obol. The price 
of a metretes of 8 choes would at the same rate be 36 drachmae, and 
even if the prices in 60 (bis] are -npos x a ^ KOV i cf- App. iii, there is here 
a great divergence from the other prices. But then as now the price 
of wine of course depended on the age and vintage. 

5 TroAirrji: see Introd. p. xlviii. rWaiKOTroAinji, cf. Strabo 803 b, 

is the most likely, if we are to look for a name not included in the 
other list, [60]-[7'2]. HAio-n-oAmji, cf. [64] 3, appears to correspond to 
AeAra in line 6. It is possible that the difference between this list and 
that in [60]-[72] is due to the different periods at which they were 
originally made. The list here cannot have been made out much before 
the twenty-seventh year (see [38] i note), while the other list may have 
been based upon an older classification. 

[Mei>e]Acu5t : cf. Strabo xvii. 23. Whether M.'s conjecture is right 
or not, the Nitriote nome, cf. [61] 20, must be meant here, unless it 
was omitted in this list. Ae Ara : cf. Strabo xvii. 4, and see Introd. 1. c. 

The metretes of 8 choes was used for wine, cf. [32] 19, while the 
ordinary metretes of 12 choes was used in measuring oil, [40] IT and 
[53] 20, and cf. note on [25] 8. The chous approximately six pints. 

12. \ifjivrji: cf. [71] 5 and u. The Fayoum received the title of 
the Arsinoite nome between the twenty-seventh and probably the thirtieth 
year of Philadelphus, when the new title occurs in a letter among Cleon's 
correspondence, P. P. 8. 2, in which Apollonius was still dioecetes of 
the Fayoum, cf. [23] 2 and [38] 3. See also P. P. 36. 9 77 avrov yrj 
(v TTJI Ai/uinjt afipoxos eon. If the whole district is meant here, as seems 
probable, the date of the change may be after Mesore of the twenty- 


ninth year. But the old name may have continued in occasional use 
for a time after the Arsinoite nome became the official title ; cf. 
App. ii. (2) 13 (v TOH \ifjLviTT]i, where the Fayoum appears to be 
meant, in a papyrus which cannot be earlier than the twenty-seventh 
year of Philadelphus. 

14. When the tax was paid in money, not in kind, it was exacted 
by the oeconomus, not the tax-farmer; cf. [29] 10 and [48] i, 8. Even 
when it was paid in kind, the presence of the tax-farmer was not 
essential and the tax could under certain circumstances be paid direct 
to the oeconomus or his agent, [28] 9-16, and [30] 4-13. If the tax- 
farmers were thus often reduced to the position of being mere spectators 
of the payments, and were sometimes not even that, it may be asked 
what purpose did they serve ? It was certainly not to save the govern- 
ment trouble in collecting the airo/xoipa, since their presence could be 
dispensed with at the least provocation, while nothing could be done 
without the oeconomus or his agents. But the tax-farmers were 
necessary for two reasons, first because they enabled the government 
to make an accurate estimate beforehand of its revenue, and secured 
it against loss from a sudden fall in the value of crops ; and secondly 
because the complicated system described here, of which the central 
fact was the separation of tax-farmer and tax-collector, rendered it 
as certain as any system could render it, that the Treasury received 
what was due, the whole of what was due, and nothing but what was 
due. For if the oeconomus attempted to defraud the government 
either by granting exemptions or by peculations, the loss would fall 
on the tax-farmers, who would then lose their surplus (see [34] 14), 
and therefore had the strongest motive for seeing that the oeconomus 
kept the accounts correctly, since every payment that was made to 
the oeconomus belonged to them. On the other hand it was impos- 
sible for the oeconomus to exact more than the legal amount of the 
tax, because the amount was fixed by a contract between the tax-farmer 
and the cultivator over which the oeconomus had no control. And 
if the tax-farmer tried to extort more than what he was entitled to, 
in one case, by the no less ingenious than equitable arrangement 
described in [2D] 13-20, he would find the tables turned on him ; and 
in the other, [28] 5-8, he would have to submit his demands to the 
oeconomus, who, having no interest in allowing the tax-farmers to 



increase their surplus at the expense of the tax-payers, and having 
been expressly forbidden to take any part in tax-farming himself, 
[15] 4, would have no motive for giving an unfair decision. So far 
as mechanical safeguards could go, the interests both of the Exchequer 
and the tax-payers were protected at every point. How the system 
worked we have little means of judging, but it is probably more than 
an accident that the Petrie papyri contain no complaints against unjust 
taxation, for in P. P. 122 it is probably not the tax-farmers who are 
to blame, but the c\aioKcnri)\oi, cf. [48] 4, and the writer of the papyrus 
in P. P. App. p. 3 only complains of wrongly awarded remissions of 
taxes. Cf. note on [39] 14 for the position of the farmers of the oil 
monopoly, which was somewhat different. 

15. : the plural because the price varied in the different nomes ; 
cf. [33] 6. 

16. ro /3a<rtAiKoy means here the royal bank, cf. [34] 17. In practice 
the aTro^oipa on vineyards was often paid in money during the third 
century, and in the next century all the evidence points to exclusive 
payment in money ; see [37] 19 note. 

[31.] 17-25. ' Stamping of receipts. The oeconomus shall establish 
repositories for the wine in each village, and shall himself give a stamped 
receipt for what is brought, to the cultivator . . . (The oeconomus shall 
transport the wine from the vats(?)' added by the corrector). 

17. For the correction of the third a in airoo-^payto'/uiaTos cf. note 
on [9] 3. 

19. KOfxi?]Tai is passive, for the transport was usually done by the 
yeo>pyos, cf. [31] 2i note and P. P. ix quoted in note on [30] 10. auros 
means that the oeconomus was to seal the receipt himself, cf. [18] 2 
cr<payt0-a/[i>os avros. Kouyiapx^t is possible in line 20, cf. [43] 3. 

24. The meaning of this addition by the corrector is very obscure. 
It is difficult to take K0jiuea-0a> in any other sense than transport, 
but see previous note. The first two letters of 25 are very doubtful : 
Wilck. thought they were not r<o but yeo>, in which case yeoopycoy can 
hardly be avoided. But this suits neither e/c, nor, so far as I can see, 
the context, and I have therefore conjectured Xyvw, which may refer 
to the exceptional cases mentioned in [26] 11-17. 

[32.] ' The cultivator shall provide pottery for the repository, and 


. . . and the pottery shall consist of water-tight jars, which have been 
tested and are sufficient for the wine payable to the tax-farmers. The 
oeconomus and antigraphcus shall, . . days before the cultivators gather 
the crops, give them the price of the pottery which each cultivator 
has to provide for the tax in wine upon his own produce ; this price 
shall be fixed by the dioccetes, who shall pay it to the oeconomus 
and antigraphcus through the royal bank in the nome ; the cultivator, 
on receiving the price, shall provide pottery of the best quality ; and if 
he does not receive the price, he shall nevertheless provide the pottery, 
but shall recover the price of it from the tax which he has to pay 
in money.' 

2. M. suggests *rj]/)or, and 8ia<rco]7rot;^eya in the next line; cf. [25] 
10 note. 

3. Kpa/bios : cf. [55] 4, P. P. xxx (c) and my corrections in P. P. App. 
p. 7, and App. ii (5). 

4. c<: possibly viup, but cf. [34] 10, and [29] 7 note. 

5. Cf. [48] 15. The a-Tro/noipa rooi; i8ia>y ytv^artav appears to be 
the ordinary tax on vineyards payable in wine while the airofjioipa ' of 
which he has to pay the value' is the tax on vineyards when payable 
in money, see [31] 4, and perhaps the tax on orchards besides. How 
the case of a cultivator who paid the whole of his tax on vineyards 
in wine and yet had no orchard, was to be met, if he did not receive 
the price, is not explained ; but I suspect that the case is not mentioned, 
either because it was not important, or because it was not likely to 
occur. There are several places where, if the letter of the papyrus 
be observed, there are inconsistencies or omissions, the importance of 
which it is easy to exaggerate : cf. note on [42] 4. 

10. TTJV <rvvTa\0fi(rav I have taken with TI/XTJV not with curofjioipav. 
Besides the awkwardness of the intervening accusative, it may be 
objected that the price appears to be fixed in 18-19, an d therefore 
was not fixed by the dioecetes. This however is not an insuperable 
difficulty, even if 18-19 do not refer to something else; and it is not 
so great as the difficulty of taking <n>i;rax0io-ar with a7ro/bioipai>, seeing 
that the a-no^oipa was fixed in [24] by law, and that this is the only 
mention of the dioecetes in [24]-[35]. Moreover if the dioecetes is the 
subject of Staypai/^aTo), it implies that he fixed the price of the pottery ; 
and the fact that the singular is used not the plural, cf. 8 

p a 


makes it difficult to suppose that the oeconomus is the subject, the 
antigrapheus being omitted. Equally abrupt changes in the subject 
are not rare in the papyrus, e.g. [54] 18, [49] 20, [48] 13, [34] 4. 
boTwav here means that the money was given outright not as a loan, 
cf. [41] 1 6, and [43] 2, for otherwise there would be no reason for 
the cultivators subtracting the price from the amount which they had 
to pay. 

n. biaypa\lfa.T<a : see note on [34] 14. The expression 'the royal 
bank in the nome ' might seem to imply that there was only one, but 
there were royal banks even in the villages, [75] i. 

17. I have taken TL^V as the object of anobovvai not of Ko/neo-0o, 
for which T^V TL^V has to be supplied : cf. [43] 16 and [48] 8. If 
TI^V be taken with Ko/ueo-0cu, and TJS as an accusative attracted into 
the genitive, the a.Trofj.oipa in line 1 7 is the same as the enro/ioipa in line 9, 
and in both cases means the tax on vineyards paid in kind, contrasted 
with the tax paid in money, which is in some respects more satisfactory. 

1 8. Perhaps Aa/x/3ai>ero> 8e. The price in question is probably that 
which the yecopyos was allowed to subtract from the oTro/xoipa TJJ 8ei 
airobovvai Trjv TI/XTJV, if he did not receive the price of the jars. 

19. Cf. note on [31] 6. 

[33.] 2-8. ' The oeconomus shall examine the (wine) . . . and taking 
with him the tax-farmer, the antigrapheus and his agent, shall jointly 
with them sell the wine, giving the (tax-farmers?) time in which to 
settle their accounts. He shall exact payment of the amounts and 
shall put them down in the account of the tax-farmers to their credit.' 

2. oo-os: sc. oivos or nap-nos ; cf. [34] 10. 

6. 8iop0a>o-oimu, i.e. 'pay off the balance of what they owe' to the 
Treasury; cf. [56] 15, which shows that the tax-farmers are meant. 
KOTnjAoi?, cf. [47] 10, is less likely, and K does not suit the vestiges of 
the first letter. Perhaps reAcovcuy, cf. [28] 9. 

7. \oyov: i.e. at the royal bank; cf. [31] 16. [cnnmi/jero) would suit 
the lacuna, but it is not the right word, as there is no question of 
a penalty here. We should expect Karaxcopi^ero), cf. [31] 16, for which 
there is not room. Wilck. suggests [7rpoo-0]eTa>. 

[33.] 9~[34] r. 'The basilicogrammateis shall, within ten days from 
the day on which they proclaim the auction, notify to the tax-farmers 


how many vineyards or orchards there are in each nome, with the 
number of arourae which they contain, and how many vineyards or 
orchards belonging to persons on the tribute list paid the tax to the 
temples before the twenty-first year. If they fail to make out the 
list, or it is discovered to be incorrect, they shall be condemned in 
a court of law, and pay the tax-farmers for every mistake of which 
they are convicted 6000 drachmae and twice the amount of the loss 
incurred by them. All owners pf vineyards or gardens on the tribute 
list who paid the sixth to the temples before the twenty-first year, 
shall henceforward pay it (to the tax-farmers).' 

10. fKOffjia: see [26] 13 note, and cf. [48] 16. Here too there is 
nothing in the papyrus for K0efxa to refer to, unless it be the auction. 
Though ten days, as was shown, was probably the time during which 
the tax was put up for sale, it is not clear whether that has anything 
to do with the ten days here. The absence of 7rpa>Toj>, cf. [26] 13, and 
the fact that the tax-farmers had already entered upon their duties, 
line 9, are in favour of fide^a referring not to the proclamation of 
the highest bid on the first day of the auction, or to a proclamation 
that there was going to be an auction, but to the proclamation of the 
final result. 

13. (popoAoyia : cf. Ros. stone 12, O.TTO ra>v virap\ov<T(av *v AiyuTrrau 
7rpo<ro8a>y KCU cpopoAoyiaw riraj /iei> eis T(\OS ac/>rjKi> aAAovs bt KtKov<f>iKcv ; 
a second century B.C. fragment, Notices et Extraits xviii. (2) p. 413, 
auaypcupei ci? [ras] cpopoAoyias ; and B. M. pap. 401. 14, see M. Hermathena^ 
vol. ix, no. xxi, KCU yrjy %(p<rov KCU oAAi/y ros c/>o(po)Aoyias. It is 
probable that the c/>opoAoyicu were taxes on land, classified according 
to the different kinds of produce, but not, as the aironoipa, taxes on 
the produce itself. In that case the cpopoAoyta here would be the list 
of cultivators of vineyards and orchards who paid c/>opos, not a list 
of all landowners, much less a list of all inhabitants. Cf. (j) P. P. 
xliii (a) c/>opos a/^nrfAwvcor ; the fact that the cultivators had to pay 
cpopos on the land as well as airo/xoipa on the produce is clearly shown 
by the recurrence of some names found in this list in the companion 
document xliii (3) (see note on [24] 14), CKTTJS KCU SCKCITTJS i. e. cnr<yioipa. 
Cf. ArriTrarpos AT/JAT/TPIOU BeperiKiSoj aiyiaAov in (a) I and (d) 51 : as there 
is probably nothing lost between ArjpjTptov and BeptviKtbos, it appears 
that he paid 20 drachmae as <opos, but only 17 drachmae 4! obols 


for, and therefore in his case $opos was a slightly heavier 
tax than airo/iotpa, but whether he paid the sixth or the tenth as the 
latter tax we do not know. Cf. also (a) 17 Avribapos KOI Hyrjf*[a>i/] TO 
irapa ria<riTos [TOU] Flao-tTos with lines 13-14 of the second column 
belonging to the CKT^ /cat binary, but not printed by M., AunScopos KCU 

Ilao-iTos; and (a) 4 nertjVouxos] ^fvapovvios /cat Marprjs TO>TOS 

A\favbpov vr]<rov Kt], i. e. 28 drachmae, with (d) 56, HtTeo-ov^os tyfva.fjLovvt.os 
/ecu Mavpys Ipovdov afj.(irek(avos) A\eav(bpov) vr](<rov) o, i.e. 70 drachmae. 

"(2) P. P. xxix (a), a taxing list on vineyards, from the mentions 
of the various KA^poi suits tyopos better than airofj-oipa, even apart from 
the heading xa>(pos ?) a/x7reA.ooioy. 

(3) P. P. xxxix (i) is also, I think, an account of </>opos, not airo/xoipa ; 
for there is no reference to wine, cf. xliii (a) 30 which belongs to the 
/ecu 8e/ccmj?, not to the c/>opos (24- 14 note); and afj.(ire\<avo$) TOU 
OVTOS riToXejuaiou, which is the correct reading in lines 5-6, suits 
<popos better than The following corrections have also occurred 
to me: I. 7rpooTa/>)(ou . . . Il7jA[ou]o-iou. 3. Tlr]Xov(n f. 4. Ap/nais . . . 
II. A\(avopov v 1 . 12. ITu[^]a)i'? . . . 0ea5eA0eias TrSy*-. 14. Ovrjrcap . . . 
16. oropTato? . . . riTjXovo-iou. 17. Tecos. 1 8. Ayadav. 19. ITjYJTOo-ipts. 

A conclusion which might be drawn from 9-23 is that owners who 
were not on the tribute list, if there were any such, e.g. those CKTOS 
<po(po)Aoyias, were not subject to the tax of a sixth. But in [36] 12-16 
it is most explicitly laid down that all cultivators of vineyards or orchards 
whatever were to pay the tax, except the priests, who, if the strict letter 
of the papyrus is to be observed, seem exempt from both taxes. But 
1. 31 of the Rosetta stone shows that before the ninth year of Epiphanes 
a tax of a Kepo/xtov on each aroura of a/-nrAms 717 belonging to the 
temples was levied, and it is not likely that in Philadelphus' reign they 
escaped this nepafjuov, which I suspect took the place of </>opo? in their 

14. There can be little doubt that the year is the same as that in 
line 21. Though the a there has been mostly broken away, what is left 
will not suit /3, and [36] 7 shows that from the twenty-second year 
onwards the tax was paid to the government, not to the temples. 

17. 6000 drachmae instead of i talent is remarkable, but there is no 
doubt about the cipher, which recurs in [67] 17 and [70] 6. 

21. The bfKarr], cf. [24] 10, is here ignored as in [36] 18 and [37] 16, 


probably because the tax was a sixth both when paid to the temples 
and when first appropriated by the government. The payment of a 
tenth by certain privileged classes was instituted between the twenty- 
third year, see [36] 2, and the twenty-seventh. Perhaps [33] i9~[34] i 
represent the law as it was first promulgated, and have been allowed to 
remain unmodified. But for the emphatic language of [36] and [37] 
I should be inclined to think that the ficxarr; was simply omitted because 
the vast majority of the tax-payers paid a sixth. Here, however, I think 
the inconsistency has a real meaning. 

The use of the CKTT; for the tax on vineyards as well as on irapa8fi"oi 
removes any doubt as to the identity of the (KTTJ in [36]-[37] with the 
airo/xoipa, which is moreover proved by other papyri, see note on [37] 19. 
Much as the Egyptian fellah has been able to endure, he could hardly 
have borne a tax of a sixth besides <opos and aTro/ioipa, to say nothing of 
oiroAoyia which is coupled with aTro^otpa in Wilck. Ostr. 711, of the third 
century B.C., and which, since the payment is in kind, must be a tax 
on produce. 

[34.] i. TTJI <fnAa8cA</>o>i is possible, cf. [36] 10. 

2-6. 'The tax-farmers shall within thirty days from the day on 
which they purchase the tax, appoint sureties for a sum greater by one- 
twentieth than the price agreed upon for the tax, and the sureties shall 
register the property which they mortgage, in monthly instalments from 
Dius to . . .' 

2. Cf. [56] 14-18 and L. P. 62 [1] i.3~[2] i. Something like ras 8e 
Karaypa^as T<OV \P r 1t JLaT(a1 ' is probably lost there in [I] 16. *caraypa<i;, 
M.'s suggestion, is not found in the Revenue Papyrus, but cf. L. P. 62 
[6] 12 (rvyKaraypa</>7]0-ofiera>v. On the change of subject in TTOIT/OXHTCU, 
cf. note on [32] 10. 

5. Aiov: the first month of the Macedonian year. The taxes were 
generally sold for a regnal year, [57] 4 note ; but there is not room for 
the last month Hyperberetaeus in the lacuna, and the payments of the 
aTTo/btoi^a only extended over the summer months, cf. note on line 9 

7-8. ' The value of the wine which is received from the tax- 
farmers for the Treasury shall be credited to the tax-farmers in the 
instalments due from them.' 


7. Cf. [53] i8-[54] 2. The wine eis TO 0a<ri\iKov was that required 
for the king and court. As there is no regulation stating the price 
which the king paid for the wine, probably it was the same as that 
fixed in [3 ]. 

8. The e of Aoyei is partly effaced, perhaps intentionally. The use of 
v7roAoyi6?or0cu, which rather implies a written transaction, and still more 
the fact that the airo/xotpa if paid in money was received by the oeco- 
nomus, [3)] 16 note, and by him deposited in the royal bank, while if 
paid in kind it was deposited by the yewpyoi in the official vnoboxt-ov, 
[31] 19, so that in neither case was the payment really made by the 
tax-farmers, seem to me irreconcilable with the hypothesis that ava^opa 
means the actual payment. It is only the account of the receipts for 
the month. Cf. [53] 24, where the same difficulty recurs, and notes on 
[16] 10 and [34] 9. 

[34.] 9~[35]. 'Balancing of accounts. When all the produce has 
been sold, the oeconomus shall take with him the chief tax-farmer and 
his associates and the antigrapheus, and shall balance the accounts with 
the chief tax-farmer and his associates. If there is a surplus left over, 
he shall pay to the chief tax-farmer and his associates through the royal 
bank the share of the surplus due to each member of the company. 
But if there prove to be a deficit, he shall require the chief tax-farmer 
and his associates and the sureties to pay each his share of it, the 
payment to be exacted within the first three months of the following 

9. 8iaA.oyioyzos : cf. [18] 9~[19] 4. There is no mention here of 
a monthly 810X07107x09 : cf. [54] 2O-[55] 12, where nothing is said about 
the final 5iaA.oyio>ios of the oil-contract It is difficult to say whether 
much stress is to be laid on the omission in either case. On the whole 
I think that here it has a meaning, for the accounts of the a-no^ioipa were 
kept in money, see [29] 10, [31] 15, [33] 5-8, [34] 6-7, which all deal 
with rifxai, cf. L. P. [4] 1 8 note, and no accurate balancing could be done 
until the wine was sold, cf. line 10. How often the sale took place is 
uncertain, owing to the lacuna in [33] 2, but the prices received by the 
oeconomus varied considerably, see App. ii (5), and note on [31] 4. 
Moreover the receipts of the tax-farmers in the case of the a-no^oipa. 
were limited to the summer months, and were not, like those of the 
oil-contractors, spread over the whole year. It is quite possible there- 


fore that one general &ioAoyio>xos was sufficient, but the term a 
whatever its precise meaning, shows that a certain amount was expected 
each month (cf. [56] 17) from the tax-farmers, and the regulation con- 
cerning the tyyvoi in [34] 4-6 implies that there was a monthly reckoning 
of some kind. 

n. o r/yopaKcos, o \<av, and a.pyjuvr]'} are here interchangeable ; cf. note 
.on [24] 17. 

14. ri8iaypa\/rara> : cf. [19] 4 rniypatyarto where there is no mention 
of the royal bank, and [32] 10 where btaypa^xiv is used in the sense of 
' paying through a bank.' Cf. Suidas quoted in Peyron's admirable note 
on btaypa<j>eiv, Pap. Taur. i. p. 144. There is not room for irpoo-5iaypa\/fara> 
which is found in L. P. 62 [5] 5, 16, nor did the tax-farmers receive 
anything besides the surplus, [12] 13 note. The fact that in one case 
certainly, in the other probably, 8iaypa</>eiv is used in the Revenue 
Papyrus for payment through a bank, is however, as Wilck. remarked, 
an accident, for the meaning of biaypcupciv was rightly decided by Peyron 
to be ' pay ' simply, whether through a bank, or, what is much more 
frequent, to a bank; e.g. P. P. xlvi (c] 13 8iayeyp(a7TTcu) (is TTJJJ . . . 
/3a(<nAiKTji;) Tp(a-ncav) ; L. P. 62 [4] 21, [5] 1 6, &c. Nevertheless the 
agreement of the Revenue Papyrus with Suidas is remarkable. 

1 8. The tax-farmers therefore as well as the sureties had to make up 
the deficit, but in what proportions we do not know, since finftaX\ov is 
quite vague. We should expect that the government would extract 
what it could from the tax-farmers and force the sureties to pay the 
rest. But there is no regulation that the farmers' own property was 
held in mortgage, and in the account of the 8iaXoyi(r/xos in A [16]-[17], 
the yyuot alone seem responsible for making up a deficit, while from the 
two series of papyri which bear on this subject, we should gather that 
the sureties were mainly, if not entirely, responsible. In P. P. xlvi the 
surety apparently has to pay more than half the whole amount which 
the tax-farmer had promised to the government, though the question is 
complicated by the occurrence of the obscure term \a\Kov irpos apyvpiov 
(to adopt Wilcken's reacting), on which see App. iii, and by an erasure, 
which makes it uncertain whether the amount paid by the surety 
coincided with his liability, or whether it was all that he was able to 
pay. In the Zois papyri the surety is actually liable for the whole 
amount promised by the tax-farmer. Unfortunately there are no details 



in either case concerning the failure of the tax-farmer to fulfil his contract 
or of the penalty which he incurred, and presumably the loss to the 
security in both cases was exceptional. The fact however remains that 
to be surety for a tax-farmer must have been an extremely burdensome 
KfiTovpyia, and it is surprising that any one could have been found to 
undertake the duty except under compulsion. This I suspect was 
exercised both in the case of the eyyvoi, and even in the case of the 
tax-farmers, though not formally admitted either in the Revenue Papyrus 
or in L. P. 62, in which a large amount of space is devoted to the 
sureties, [1] i3-[3] 16. The edict of Tiberius Alexander C. I. G. iii. 
4957 has a significant passage, line 10 ff. cyv<av yap irpo iravros euAoyco- 
Tarrjf owav ryv fvrev&v VJJLMV virep TOV \j.t] aKovras avOpcairovs as reAcoreias TJ 
aAAas /zt<r0a>o-eis ovcnaKas -napa TO K.OIVOV (Oos T&V eirapxeicoy Trpos /Stay 
ayecrtfai, K.T.A., which shows that the position of the tax-farmers and 
a fortiori that of the eyyuoi had become intolerable. Cf. L. P. 6 a 
[5] 3, which shows the difficulty of finding tax-farmers. 

[35.] 3. KaAei0-0<o0-ai> : cf. [8] 3 and [21] 12. 01 abiKovpfvoi are probably 
the tax-farmers who had not received the surplus due to them. 

With this section the law concerning the aTro/xoipa comes to an end. 
The next two columns give the decrees by which the second Ptolemy 
effected the ' disendowment of the Church ' or state religion. 

[36.] 1-2. The conclusion of a Trpoara-y^a enclosing a Ttpoypa^a 
[36] 3~[37] i, which quotes a previous irpoo-ray/xa [37] 2-9. This in 
turn introduces the Trpo-ypa^a [37] 10-20. The sequence of these four 
documents in point of time is therefore the exact reverse of their written 

[36.] 3-19- 'The basilicogrammateis of the nomes throughout the 
country shall, each for his nome, register both the number of arourae 
comprised by vineyards and orchards and the amount of the different 
kinds of produce from them, cultivator by cultivator, beginning with the 
twenty-second year, and shall separate the land belonging to the temples 
and the produce from it in order that the nest of the land may (be 
determined), from which the sixth is to be paid to Philadelphus, and 
they shall give a written account of the details to the agents of Satyrus. 
Similarly both the cleruchs who possess vineyards or orchards in the 
lots which they have received from the king, and all other persons who 


own vineyards or orchards or hold them in gift or cultivate them on 
any terms whatever shall, each for himself, register both the extent of 
his land and the amount of its different kinds of produce, and shall give 
the sixth part of all the produce to Arsinoe Philadelphus for a sacri- 
fice and libation (to her).' 

4. This passage shows clearly that there was one /3a<riAicos ypa/ufxartus 
in each nome, though cf. P. P. 138 (a), where the plural is found. But 
probably the officials of more than the one nome are there meant, cf. [37] 
2-5. Though in the Fayoum the oeconomus was undoubtedly an officer 
of a fi*pis, not of the whole nome (see P. P. xviii. (i) 2), we do not know that 
the other nomes were divided into /xpi8e?, and on the whole the Revenue 
Papyrus points to the oeconomus being under ordinary circumstances an 
officer of the whole nome, though it is by no means conclusive, for 
throughout the papyrus officials are nearly always spoken of in the 
singular, even when there were many bearing the same title, e.g. the 
comarch, [40] 3-5. 

6. yfrrj/iara : the plural because referring to both a/xireAou'es and -napa- 
Sfio-oi, but perhaps with a secondary reference to the different kinds of 
produce included under the head of TrapaSeio-oi ; cf. [24] 1 2 note. 

7. OTTO TOV K/3L : the meaning is that the Trpoypap.^ is to be retro- 
spective, though issued between Dius and Daisius of the twenty-third 
year, cf. [37] 9 with [36] 2. The Leyden papyrus Q gives us actual 
proof that the tax was paid to Arsinoe, not to the temples, on the 
produce of the twenty-second year, though the transaction recorded by 
that papyrus, the payment of 20 drachmae for the Kfpafjuov TTJI 4n\a8eA<pon 
by the SoKijiaorr/s to the TtpanTap, is dated in the twenty-sixth year, and 
the payment was therefore some years in arrear, which explains the 
mention of the TrpaKT<ap ; cf. note on [6] i. 

8. I am indebted to Wilcken for the restoration of this important 
passage, which shows that the iepa yrj was exempt from the CKTTJ. It is 
not surprising that Philadelphus, while diverting the revenue of the 
older gods to the new goddess Arsinoe, hesitated to demand a tax for 
the deified Arsinoe upon land actually belonging to the gods, raura is 
a mistake for ra ; cf. line 6. 

10. TTJI 4>iAa8eA</>coi : cf. P. P. part I. 70 (2) i, and note on [37] 19. 
The date of Arsinoe's death is uncertain ; see Wilck. art. Arsinoe in 
Pauly-Wissowa's Encycl. But as the Pithom stele shows that she was 



alive in the twentieth year, it is probable that she was alive in the 
twenty-third year, though the Revenue Papyrus is equally consistent 
with the opposite hypothesis. Cf. Introd. p. xxxix. 

ii. Satyrus: see [37] n. 

i 2. KXrjpovxoi : cf. [24] 6 note. Some of them at any rate paid only 
a tenth after the twenty-seventh year. But nothing can be more precise 
than this passage ; cf. [33] 19, which agrees with it. 

15. fv 8o>pecuy: cf. [43] n note. It is clear from the references to 
this mode of tenure that it was very common, and that holders of land 
fv Soopecu were generally to some extent exempt from taxation. 

19. Was the sacrifice to be offered by the tax-payers to Arsinoe, or 
by Arsinoe on their behalf to the gods? M. prefers the latter meaning, 
arguing that in the other case there would be no article before 6v<nav K<U 
o-novbrjv, cf. Rosetta stone, line 50 o-wreAowres Ovonas KCU (nrovbas. But 
the fact that the tax was called sometimes the fK-nj TTJI <I>iAa8eA</>aH, 
sometimes airo^otpa TTJI 4>tAa8eA$coi, see note on [37] 19, is all in favour 
of the first view. 

It is hardly necessary to point out that the CKTTJ TJJI <J>iAa8eA$on was 
collected and paid ets TO /Sao-iAifcoy like any other tax. The dvcna nai 
a-irovbr] was an ingenious but transparent fiction to cloak the disendow- 
ment of the temples. 

[37.] i. avTiypafyov probably refers to the following ir/aooroy/bia : see 
note on [36] i. 

[37.] 2-9. ' King Ptolemy to all strategi, hipparchs, captains, no- 
marchs, toparchs, oeconomi, antigrapheis, basilicogrammateis, Libyarchs, 
and chiefs of police, greeting. I have sent you the copies of my procla- 
mation, which ordains the payment of the sixth to (Queen) Philadelphus. 
Take heed therefore that my instructions are carried into effect. Fare- 
well. The twenty-third year, Dius the twenty . . .' 

2. While the strategus already in the third century B.C. combined 
civil with military duties (see M., P. P. Introd. p. 7 and Wilck. Anmerk. 
Droysen Kl. Schr. p. 437), the papyri in which he is mentioned either are 
or may be later than Philadelphus' reign (including even P. P. ii, cf. note 
on [57] 4) ; and probably at this period the position of the strategus was 
still in the main military. At any rate the rjyfp.<v was a military officer, 
so that there is a strong probability that the official whose title is lost in 


the lacuna, was a military one also, and that the civil officials come 
afterwards. Neither the (TriorpaTTjyos nor the viroorpaT^yos has yet been 
found in the third century B. C., while i-mrapxtat are frequently found in 
P. P. There is an unpublished papyrus of that collection which begins 
Ayadtbt (sic) orpanjyoH KOI wnap\rji. 

3. ij-y(fjio(Ti. The hegemones are thus subordinate to the strategi ; 
nevertheless the Romans chose this title as an equivalent for the 
praefectus. Cf. an inscr. at Alexandria, salle G, KaAXiorparos o Tjyc/zwy 
KCU 01 TTayiM(voi VTT dVTov oTparicoTai. This inscription has been asserted 
by Strack (Mitth. d. K. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. Athen, 1894, p. 237) to 
be a forgery, but on very inadequate grounds. He adduces four argu- 
ments, (i) The writer of the inscription took account of the rough- 
nesses of the stone, leaving a space where there was a hole or excrescence. 
But this only proves that the writer did not select a very smooth piece 
of stone, and by itself is no argument for the date. (2) Strack objects 
that the second title of Ptolemy Epiphanes, Euxapioros, is absent. But 
the second title is omitted on coins, cf. Poole Catalogue, PI. xxxii. 7, 
which has riroAe/Liaiov Eiri^ayovs, and Epiphanes and Cleopatra are 
always called foot ni(f>avcis simply. (3) Strack remarks that Callistratus, 
being a Greek, ought to have his father's name mentioned, an argument 
which is very far from being conclusive. (4) He says that qye/xoov by itself 
without 7r avftpnv is in a Ptolemaic inscription an anachronism, an argu- 
ment which is refuted not only by this passage in the Revenue Papyrus, 
but by L. P. 45 verso line i, and P. P. xlv, cols. 2 and 3. Cf. pap. 32 
in my A. E. F. which has Tjye/icor .... KCU 01 orpanoorai, like the 
inscription. Finally the inscription has every appearance of antiquity ; 
and it is not at all likely that a forged Greek inscription should have 
found its way into the Alexandria Museum, when a forger could spend 
his time much more profitably by turning his attention to 'twelfth 
dynasty' stelae, papyri, or scarabs. 

ro/iapxcus KCU roirap^ais : see [41] 16 note. In P. P. 138 the nomarchs 
are put after the oeconomi in the list of officials ; but cf. [41] 7, which 
agrees with this passage in giving precedence to the nomarch. There 
can be no doubt that this is the right order. 

4. otKovo/iots : see [36] 4 note. 

5. Ai/3uapx<us. A Ai/3u<ipx7js rStv Kara Kvpijvrjv TOTKDV is mentioned in 
Polyb. xv. 25. 12, but I agree with M., who thinks that the Libyarchs of 


the Rev. Pap. were officials of the nome Libya, which included a wide 
district. Cf. the terms Apaftapxns and, in the second century B.C. papyri, 
0Tjapx o? - This passage shows that the Libyarchs ranked much lower 
than the nomarchs in the official hierarchy ; cf. [41] 16 note. 

The absence of the eTn/ieATjnjs from not only this list of officials but 
the whole Revenue Papyrus is remarkable, for he is often mentioned 
in L. P. 62, 63 with the other financial officials. Cf. Rev. R. E. v. 44, 
and P. P. 61. i (fifth year), and 108. 2 (eighth year). Both papyri may 
be forty or fifty years later than the Revenue Papyrus, especially the 
second, in which the drachmae are copper ; see App. iii. There is 
therefore no direct evidence that the title was used at this time. But 
the office and title probably existed nevertheless. 

6. The of Kad, if 6 it be, is very irregularly formed and joined 
to the o. 

7. Cf. P. P. [122] 6, and App. p. 8. 

[37.] 10-20. ' Owners of vineyards or orchards, whatever their tenure, 
shall all give to the agents of Satyrus and the accountants who have 
been appointed agents of Dionysodorus, nome by nome, a written state- 
ment, which statement shall be given by themselves in person or by the 
agents or tenants of their estates from the eighteenth to the twenty-first 
year, and shall contain both the amount of the different kinds of pro- 
duce and the name of the temple to which they used to pay the sixth 
due, together with the amount of the sixth in each year. Similarly 
the priests also shall give a written statement of the estates from which 
they severally derived a revenue, and the amount of the tax in each 
year, whether paid in wine or in silver. Likewise the basilicogrammateis 
shall send in a written statement of all these details.' 

ii. Satyrus: cf. Strabo xvi. 4; a general of Philadelphus bearing 
this name was sent on an expedition to obtain elephants and explore 
the country of the Troglodytes. But it is not likely that he was the same 
person as this Satyrus, who must have held a high financial office at 
Alexandria, and possibly was the dioecetes par excellence, while 01 
napa Sarupou may have been the ordinary dioecetae together with their 
clerks and subordinates. Cf. [18] 6, where the eKAoyiorr;? is coupled 
with the SioiKTjrr;?. 

14. The twenty-first year was the last in which the tax was paid 
to the temples ; cf. note on [36] 7, and [33] 14. The information was 


required in order that the tax-farmers might be able to take the 
average of the four preceding years as their basis in bidding for the 

Wilck. suggests 87j\ov<ras at the end of the line, which makes the 
construction easier, but I am not sure that it is necessary. 

17. KTrj/xaros, as Wilck. pointed out to me, refers not to the Kn/jzara 
of private persons mentioned in line 14, but to the tepa yrj belonging 
to the temples ; cf. [36] 8, which explains this passage. The government 
wished to ascertain the number of vineyards and orchards belonging 
to the priests, in order that they might be exempted from the tax, 
not in order that they might pay it. 

18. While this passage shows that the priests received the rent of 
their own Krrj/iara partly in money, partly in kind, it is not stated 
whether the CKTTJ which they received from the KTTj/iara of other persons 
was paid in the same way. But in exacting the tax on napabfia-oi 
in money always, and that on a/LnreAcoves in money under certain con- 
ditions, the government was probably continuing the regulations in 
force when the cnro/xotpa was paid to the temples. 

19. [K]<U 01 : the position of the fragments at the end of this line 
is doubtful. For no tax of the Ptolemies have we more information 
than for the aTropoipa, but it is not easy to arrange it chronologically. 
There is: (i) Leyden pap. Q (see note on [36] 7), a receipt for the 
Kfpafjuov TTJI 4>iAa8fA<au, dated the twenty-sixth year of Philadelphus. 
(2) The Revenue Papyrus. (3) Wilck. Ostr. 711, a receipt for the pay- 
ment of aTTOfzoipa and otvoXoyia in kind, dated the fifth year, probably of 
Euergetes', perhaps of Philopator's reign. (4) A papyrus at Dublin, 
C b , No. 9 of my A. E. F., &c., dated the eighth year, which mentions 
the oTro/xoipa TTJS <Jn[Aa8eA<ov. From the close resemblance of the hand- 
writing to that of the wills dated the tenth year of Euergetes in P. P. 
part I, M. assigns this papyrus to Euergetes' reign. This document 
and P. P. xlvii. (see below) are conclusive evidence that the aTrojxoipa 
of [24]- [35] is identical with the KTTJ of [33], [36], and [37]. (5) P. P. 
part I, xvi. (2), which records the payment of the tax on the produce of 
trapabc icroi in silver, and is dated the seventeenth year of Euergetes. 
(6) P. P. xxvii, and (7) xxx (*?), which record the payment of the CKTT) in 
kind upon vineyards, and in silver on irapabfiaoi, dated the twenty-third 
year, probably of Euergetes, but possibly of Philadelphus. (8) P. P. 


xxx (c\ in which the CXTTJ upon vineyards is assessed partly in kind, 
partly in silver, that upon irapabeio-oi. in silver. (9) P. P. xliii (6) CKTTJ K<H 
SCKOTTJ, in which a/z-7re\o>z/es are assessed partly in kind, partly in silver, and 
7rapa8et(Toi in silver ; cf. note on [24] 1 3. This papyrus and (8) are before 
Epiphanes' reign, see App. iii. (10) P. P. xlvi (see note on [34] 18), dated 
the second and fourth years of Epiphanes, which refers to the airojuotoa 
TTJI <J>iAa8eA</>un (cf. no. 3) KCU rots <I>iAo7rarop(ri 0eots. (n) Wilck. Ostr. 
322 = R. E. vi. p. 7, no. 2, a receipt for 2280 drachmae paid to the 
royal bank in the sixth year of a Ptolemy. Wilck. R. E. 1. c. assigned 
it on palaeographical grounds to Euergetes I, but the fact that the 
drachmae are copper makes it much more probable that it belongs 
to Epiphanes' reign; see App. iii. (12) Rosetta stone, lines 13-15, 
jrpoo-erafe 8e KOI ras Ttpo<robovs TCOV lepaw KCU ras bibop.vas eis aura nor 
(viavTov aui>raeis o^in/cas re /cat apyvpiKas o/uotoos 8e Kai ras 
aTro/ioipas rots 0eots OTTO re TTJS aftTreAmSos yrjs xai TO>V 7ra/)a&ei<ra>v 
ra>z> aXX<av T<av vnapavTu>v rots 0eois eiri rou Trarpos aurou pfv 
If ras Katfrjccowas aTrofj.oi.pas rots 0eots has the meaning which has been 
generally attributed to it, that the a-rro/xoipai were paid to the temples, 
the inscription makes two statements, which if true would be of the 
highest importance, (i) that in the reign of Philopator the temples 
received the a-n-o/xotpa from vineyards and orchards, (2) that they 
continued to receive them in the ninth year of Epiphanes. But there 
are grave difficulties in the way of accepting either of these statements. 
The association of the gods Philopatores with Arsinoe in P. P. xlvi (c\ 
dated the fourth year of Epiphanes, is much more consistent with the 
supposition that the deified Philopator, far from giving back the 
oTrojuotpa to the temples, went a step further than his predecessors, and 
made himself the recipient of the tax in name as well as in reality. 
And even if the association of the gods Philopatores with Arsinoe 
did not take place until the beginning of Epiphanes' reign, it is in 
any case certain that the tax was paid to the government, not to the 
temples, within five years, perhaps within three, of the Rosetta stone, 
and that if Epiphanes gave it back in the ninth year, it was soon 
appropriated by the government ; for the payment of a-nonoipa in 
copper drachmae to the royal bank occurs in numerous ostraca belonging 
to the second century B.C., see (13) below. But I do not believe that 
these changes ever took place at all. Though Philopator and Epiphanes 


owing to the civil war in Egypt found it necessary to conciliate 
the priests, it is unlikely that either of them, considering the im- 
poverished condition of the exchequer shown by the deterioration of 
the coinage and the adoption of a copper standard, could afford to 
give up so profitable a source of income as the a-no^oipa : and since 
the evidence of the papyri and ostraca, while not absolutely irreconcilable 
with the Rosetta stone, is all in favour of the supposition that the 
government never renounced the airo^iotpa, I think that, if the meaning 
generally given to this passage of the Rosetta stone be correct, the 
priests' statements are untrue. But a distinction is carefully drawn 
in the passage between the irpo<Tobot and <rwraets of the temples and 
the ttTro/xoipat of the gods ; and if we suppose that by the ' gods ' are 
meant Arsinoe and the gods Philopatorcs (cf. P. P. xlvi), the passage 
only implies that Philopator and Epiphanes maintained the fiction set 
up by Philadelphus, that the crn-o/Aoipa was applied to religious purposes 
when paid to Arsinoe. In that case we need not find the priests 
guilty of anything worse than an expression of flattery, not more abject 
than other phrases in both the Rosetta and Canopus inscriptions. 

(13) It is probably not a mere accident that all the receipts for 
dTTo/uunpa found in the second century B.C. ostraca (see W. Ostr. 332, 
354, 1234, 123.5, &c.), refer to payment in money, and I conjecture that 
payment in kind was not allowed after Epiphanes' reign. Moreover 
an ostracon in Prof. Sayce's collection (no. 1518) deciphered by Wilcken 
shows that the a-nopoipa. in the second century was no longer a Trpos 
apyvpiov OH/TJ, but an <avrj TT/JOS x a ^ KOV i-o'ovofj.ov, i. e. the tax-farmers were 
allowed to pay in copper without having also to pay the difference 
of the exchange, cf. L. P. 62 [5] 16 and App. iii. The latest mention 
of airofjioipa is in a papyrus at the British Museum, from which Wilcken 
has made the interesting discovery that the tax continued to be paid 
after the Roman conquest. 

[38.] 'The twenty-seventh year, Loius loth, we will correct this 
(among?) the agents of Apollonius:' altered by the corrector to 'we 
corrected this in the office of Apollonius the dioecctcs.' 

i. Between this and the preceding column are 18 inches of blank 
papyrus. The writer of it is the same as the writer of [23], the corrector 
the same as the corrector of [39]-[56], who is in my opinion the writer 
of the btopdoifj^a [57] and [58], besides having probably made the few 



corrections in A and B which are not made by the scribes themselves. 
His corrections in C fall into two classes, those in which he merely 
corrects the blunders of the scribes, e.g. [41] 4 and [42] 17, and those 
in which he alters the meaning of or makes some addition to the 
original draft of C. The first question which arises in [38] is to which 
of these two classes do the corrections here belong? The erasure of 
jrapa and the insertion of TOV SIOIKTJTOU obviously belong to the second, 
the insertion of ey probably to the first. For though a mistake in 
a note like this is very remarkable, the dative without a preposition 
is untranslateable. There is less doubt concerning the alteration of 
the tense in 5iop0&xro/ze0a. It is not necessary to suppose a blunder, 
and therefore it is not legitimate to do so. The meaning of the cor- 
rection is that the writer of [38], after the first draft, i.e. [39]-[56], 
was completed, inserted a note saying that he would cause the papyrus 
to be corrected in Apollonius' office. The papyrus was accordingly sent 
thither, and the corrector after revising it notified the fact that he had 
done so by changing the tense from the future to the past. The 
original draft therefore consisted of [39]-[56], while the corrections in 
those columns are contemporaneous with [57] and [58], as is also clear 
from internal evidence, see notes on [41] 20, [53] 18. In what position 
do [59]- [72], all written by one scribe, stand? [59] and [60] are 
a repetition with a few variations of [57]-[58], the rest consists of 
a list of nomes. Now though the original draft [39]-[56] refers in 
one passage to a list of nomes, that list is certainly not the list which 
we have, while our list, see notes on [53] 18 and [57] 6, agrees with 
' the corrections in [39]-[56] and the two columns added by the corrector. 
[59]-[72] were therefore added when the corrections were made, and 
the explanation of the repetition of [57]-[58] in [59]-[CO] is that 
[59]-[72] originally existed as a separate piece, different from the 
papyrus of [1]~[58] not only in texture but by at least 3 inches in 
height, and the corrector probably found it more convenient to join 
this strip to [58] than to copy out the list of nomes himself, although 
by doing so he caused the needless repetition of two columns. Whether 
[59] and [60] were directly copied from '[5 7]- [5 8] is doubtful, see note 
on [57] 6, and the cause of the repetition must of course be a matter 
of pure conjecture ; but it concerns us very little whether the list of 
nomes referred to in [53] 18 was, before the corrections were made, 


joined to the papyrus at the point where [59] now joins it, and was 
cut off by the corrector in order that the new list might be substituted, 
or whether the first draft of the law was incomplete and contained 
no list of nomes. The important facts are that the official list of 
nomes referred to in the uncorrectcd draft of [53] was quite different 
from the list which we possess, that [59]-[72] originally formed a sepa- 
rate document, and that the corrections in [38]-[56] and the addition 
of [57]-[72] represent changes introduced into the law concerning the 
oil contract during the twenty-seventh year, as the date in [38] i 
referring to the corrections shows. The first draft, [39]-[56] without 
the corrections, is doubtless a copy of the older law on the subject, 
though how much older we cannot say, except that those parts of it 
which are 8iaypa^ara seem to have been revised yearly, [53] u, and 
therefore may not be older than the twenty-sixth year. 

Since C was written in Loius of the twenty-seventh year, the fact 
that A and B precede C, even though originally they were- probably 
separate documents, makes it certain that they too were written in the 
twenty-seventh year. Therefore the date in [24] 2 is the actual year 
in which the scribe was writing, not as in the case of the dates in [36] 
and [37] the year in the document which he had before him. On D 
and E which are contemporary with B see note on [73] i. As the 
airo/ioipa was only transferred to Arsinoe in the twenty-third year, 
B cannot be based on much older documents, cf. notes on [24] and 
[33], but as Soter must have introduced ro/jiot rcAcoi-iKot, it is quite 
possible that A is based for the most part on them. Cf. note on [31] 5- 

3. TOU 5iouc?jrou : this is the only place in [l]-[72] where this official 
has the simple title, elsewhere he is called o cm rqs SIOIKTJO-CCOS Terayjxcroy, 
though see [86] 7. But no stress is to be laid on the variation, cf. note 
on [24] j 7. 

M. in P. P. Introd. p. 9, has called attention to the fact that there 
were local dioecetae as well as the principal dioecetes in Alexandria, 
and I would go a step further and assert that of the dioecetae mentioned 
by L. Rec. p. 339, all those quoted from papyri were local dioecetae. 
It is in any case far more probable that the corrections in [39]-[56] 
were made in the office of the local dioecetes than that the papyrus was 
sent to Alexandria to be corrected. And since the whole Revenue 
Papyrus came from the Fayoum, see note on [73] i, it is almost certain 

R 2 


that the Apollonius in line a is the Apollonius mentioned in Cleon's 
correspondence; see P. P. 6. 2, 8. i, 9. 8, 33. 3, 34. 3, 10, all either 
certainly or probably belonging to the thirtieth year of Philadelphus. 

The dioecetes, being the chief financial official, controlled not only 
the oeconomus ; [18] 6-8, but the nomarch, [41] 12, [46] 5. Prisoners 
were sent to him, L. P. 62 [8] 17, and P. P. 34 [3] 10. He was not 
permanently resident in a nome, [18] 6 note, cf. P. P. 122. 5, 9, a letter 
written from some one in the Nile valley, perhaps at Memphis, to the 
Fayoum ; and it is clear that the district under the care of the dioecetes 
included more than a single nome. 

[39.] 1-12. ' The contractors shall pay the cultivators for an artaba 
of sesame containing 30 choenices prepared for grinding 8 drachmae, for 
an artaba of croton containing 30 choenices prepared for grinding 4 
drachmae, for an artaba of cnecus prepared for grinding i drachma 
2 obols, for an artaba of colocynth 4 obols, for linseed 3 obols. If the 
cultivator will not give the contractors produce prepared for grinding, 
he shall measure it out from the store, having cleaned it with a sieve, 
and shall measure out in addition for completing the preparation of the 
produce for grinding 7 artabae of sesame for every 100, of croton the 
same amount, and of cnecus 8 artabae.' 

1. This section is a Stay/m/A/ua, see 16 and [53] IT, a term used in C 
to express those sections of the papyrus which are concerned with values 
or prices: e.g. [40] 9-16, [43] 11-19, an ^ [53]. Cf. [73] i note, and 
L. P. 62 [8] 5. 

2. Cf. [25] 8 note. An artaba of 28 choenices is mentioned in my 
A. E. F. pap. 1 8. The difficult question of the various artabae in the 
Ptolemaic period is fully discussed by Wilck. in his forthcoming Corpus 
Ostracorum. The choenix, he tells me, is approximately a litre. 

3. Cf. [53] 16, where this proportion of 8:4: i is found between 
the value of an artaba of sesame, croton, and cnecus; and [41] 10 and 
17, [43] 17-18, where the same or nearly the same proportion is observed. 
Cf. also the tax on sesame and croton, [39] 14-15, [57] 12. The prices 
here are probably Trpos x. a ^ KOV > see [40] 10 and [43] 16, i.e. payment was 
made in copper ; cf. line 1 7 below, where apyvpiov is probably opposed 
to payment in copper as well as to payment in kind, and see App. iii. 

I am indebted to Dr. E. P. Wright of Dublin for the following notes 
on the oil-producing plants. ' Sesame oil is extracted from the seeds of 


Sesamum oricntale and Sesamum indicum. When the seeds are in good 
condition, from 49 to 51 per cent, by weight of oil will be taken from 
them. ' Croton ' oil is extracted from the seeds of Ricinus communis, 
the castor-oil plant ; the seeds under favourable circumstances yield 
about 25 per cent, by weight of oil. Cnecus oil was almost certainly 
made from the seeds of some composite plant, possibly an artichoke. 
The sunflower yields 15 per cent, by weight of oil, but oils from such 
a source are inferior. As to colocynth oil, the seeds of Citrullus colo- 
cynthis yield oil, but are not apparently used at present for such purposes.' 

As Dr. Wright suggests, the fact that sesame yields 50 per cent, by 
weight, and croton 25 per cent., helps to explain the proportion of 2 : i 
in their prices, but to what extent depends on the respective weights of 
an artaba of sesame and an artaba of croton. In speaking of ' croton,' 
I should explain that I mean throughout what the ancients meant by 
it, the castor-oil plant, not the plant which is now by a misnomer called 
' croton.' This does indeed produce an oil, but it is only useful as 
a very powerful drug. 

The most remarkable point in the list is the absence of olive-oil (see 
Introd. p. xxxv), the place of which for cooking purposes was clearly taken 
at this time by sesame oil. For the uses of castor-oil, see Strabo xvii. 
824 fly pfv \v%vov TOIS airo TT/S x^P ay ^xebov TI Tiao-tv, eis aAapi/xa 8c TOIS 
ir>eoT^>ois Kal fyyariKcorc'poi?. Cf. Herod, ii. 94 and Wiedemann's note, 
Herodot's zweites Buch, p. 382. Probably it was occasionally used then 
even for cooking by the poorest inhabitants, a practice which has not yet 
died out in Nubia. Dr. Wright tells me that castor-oil is still used in 
China for cooking purposes, but the Chinese have some method of 
depriving it of its purgative principle. Verily dfc gustibus non est dis- 

6. KoXoK.wOi.vov : elsewhere this is used for the oil, not the plant ; but 
cf. [55] 6, and the ambiguity of TOU e* K.T.\. in the next line. 

7. In the enumeration of the oils, [40] 9-13 and [55] 7-9, in the place 
of linseed oil we have TO tTttX\vyvi.ov 'oil for wicks,' but see [57] 19 TO 
UTTO TOV \ivov onrp/xaTos where the oil is meant, not the seeds, so that 
there is little doubt about the identity of TO cTreAXux 1 ' 101 ' w ^h linseed oil, 
and it is improbable that this CTT\\VXI>IOV was a less valuable quality of 
some of the other oils. o-Trcp/xaTos is governed by e/c, although the seeds 
are meant here, not the oil. 


8. The yewpyoi in [39]-[60], like the yecopyoi in [24]-[37], are private 
cultivators. Though the cultivation of sesame and croton was strictly 
regulated by the government, the land was not j3a<nXi/c7j yrj, nor is there 
any system of corvee such as that described in L. P. 63. Cf. a demotic 
contract with Greek subscription in Revillout's Nouv. Chrest. Dem. 
P- J 55> m which Phib the son of Phib agrees, pledging himself by 
a /3ao-iAiKos opuos, to plant 20 arourae of land belonging to the temples 
with sesame : and P. P. xxxix (a), where the KATjpen of private individuals 
are to be planted with croton. 

9. Trapafierpftra) : ' measure out' publicly, in the presence of some one, 
cf. [43] 2, 1 2. aAo) : the place where the produce was kept, cf. [41] 1 9, 
and P. P. 121. 23 rcoi> 8e aA<oi> ov<r<av 07jKa>i>. The oil was manufactured 
in an eAatovpytor or epyao-Trjpiov, see [44], [45]. 

Ka6apas : cf. irvpos pvnapos in Wilck. Ostr. 768, and a papyrus at 
Alexandria, M. Bull, de Corr. Hell, xviii. p. 145, line 13 . . /j/uara a-Tro 
TYJS aAco <rvv ran Koznopran ap it, and line 17 a-noKadapo-is TOV cnrou. 

ii. The 'sign' for apra/3a is to be explained as ap with a stroke over 
it to mark the abbreviation, the top of the p being added separately : 
cf. [46] 17 where the same sign occurs, but without a stroke over it. 
In [53] 16 the loop of the p is joined to the a, while the tail has almost 
disappeared. In [60] 25 and the succeeding columns the sign is drawn 
without lifting the pen from the papyrus, the form found most commonly 
in the Petrie papyri. The addition of a curved line above, i. e. v, trans- 
forms it into the 'sign' for apovpa, as. is clearly shown by pap. 33 of 
my A. E. F. Cf. also [57] 12 and [59] 13, where artaba is represented 
by a with a stroke after it, which may be p or a sign of abbreviation. 

[39.] 13-18. 'The contractors shall receive from the cultivators, for 
the tax of 2 drachmae payable on the sesame and the tax of i drachma 
on the croton, sesame and croton at the value decreed in the legal tariff, 
and shall not exact payment in silver.' 

13. That the contractors are the persons meant throughout [39] and 
[40] is evident from numerous passages in the following columns. Cf. 
[39] 13 with [41] 10 and [54] 23; and [40] 9 with [49] 18; and see 
[53] 1 6 note. 

14. The tax was levied on each artaba, see [41] 10 and [57] 12 = 
[59] 13, and thus amounted to one-fourth of the value in the case of 
sesame and croton. No tax was levied on cnecus, colocynth, and flax, 


the growth of which was not regulated by the central government, 
though the distribution of all crops was supervised by the nomarch, see 
note on [41] 16. On the other hand the precise amount of sesame and 
croton to be grown throughout the country is fixed in [60]-[72]. 

Since the contractors paid the cultivator 8 drachmae for an artaba 
of sesame but received 2 drachmae back in sesame, why is there not one 
regulation that they should pay the cultivator 6 drachmae, instead of 
two regulations, one that they should pay him 8 drachmae, the other 
that he should pay them two? It is quite certain that the contractors 
were the same in both cases, see [41] 10-11. Yet there is no mention 
of the tax in the StaAoyio-^o? [54] 2o-[55] 1 2, and since the sesame and 
croton collected as the tax must have been made into oil, like the sesame 
and oil bought by the contractors, it is impossible that the account of 
the tax should have been kept separate from the other accounts, and 
administered according to the regulations laid down in A for farming 
the taxes. As the effect of the tax on sesame and croton was to reduce 
one element in the cost of making oil, the price of the seeds, by one- 
fourth, probably the tax was ignored in the accounts, and the price of 
sesame and croton treated as 6 and 3 drachmae for an artaba. 

The only explanation of the circumlocution which I can suggest is 
that the government wished to draw a nominal distinction between the 
V7rore\eis here and the areAeis in [43] 11, though in reality the 
received scarcely anything more for their produce than the 

The position of 01 irpta^fvoi n\v eAancrji; differs considerably from that 
of 01 Tipia^fvoi in A and B. The latter contracted to pay a fixed sum 
for a tax the amount of which was uncertain. If the tax produced more 
than what they had agreed to pay, the surplus went to them ; if it 
produced less, they had to bear the loss. On the other hand the 
contractors of the oil monopoly agreed to pay the government a fixed 
sum for the profits arising from the sale of oil [45] 2 and [55] 2, and 
here there seems little room for a deficit or a surplus such as that 
mentioned in A and B. The precise cost of manufacturing a metretes 
of oil was fixed beforehand, [55] 2-12, as was the retail price, [40] 9-16, 
and since the amount of sesame and croton to be made into oil in each 
nome was fixed in [59]-[7^], the number of metretae that could be sold 
was also limited. The only elements of uncertainty were (i) the price 
received by the contractors from the retailers, which was fixed by 


auction, [48] 14. (2) The amount of oil produced from a given amount 
of seed could not be anticipated with absolute precision, but apparently 
there was a fixed amount of oil expected from each artaba, and if the 
amount of oil actually produced was above the average, this surplus 
belonged not to the contractors, but to the Treasury [58] 8. (3) The 
number of metretae sold might fall short of the contractors' expectations, 
and they received less for oil remaining over when the contract expired 
than for the oil which they had sold, [53] 14. (4) The duty on foreign 
oil brought into the country was paid to the contractors, [52] 20, and 
the amount of this would be uncertain. But the margin for either profit 
or loss, so far as the contractors were concerned, was extremely narrow, 
and the absence of any regulation like that in [18] 9 and [34] 9-21 
might be thought to show that there was no margin at all. Still, as the 
actual profit made by the sale of the oil must have had a definite relation 
to the sum promised by the contractors, it is probable that any surplus 
or deficit on the whole contract was treated in the usual way. 

On the other hand there are good reasons for supposing that such 
a surplus was likely to be very unimportant. These are : (i) the absence 
of any regulation providing for the contingency ; (2) the use of fmyevrjua 
in C, not for the surplus above the total amount which the contractors 
had agreed to pay, but for the profit on the sale of each metretes of 
oil, i.e. the difference between the cost and the selling price, [41] n ; 
(3) the fact that the contractors received a portion of this 7riyei;T7/ia 
as their pia-dos or pay, [45] 6, [55] 13-16, while in A and B there 
is no hint of a / for the tax-farmers, [31] 14 note. In A and 
B the government by farming out the taxes secured a fixed revenue, 
while the tax-farmers were allowed the opportunity of making a surplus. 
In C the government farmed out the oil-monopoly, not in the least 
to secure a fixed revenue, for the revenue from it was fixed already, 
but to ensure the economical manufacture of the oil, while the tax- 
farmers received a definite reward for their labour in superintending the 
manufacture and sale of the oil instead of an indefinite surplus. 

It is in their capacity of manufacturers far more than in their 
capacity of tax-farmers that 01 Trpiapevoi -n\v eAaiKTjy were necessary to 
the government, and for that reason throughout C I have translated 
ot irpia/xeroi ' contractors.' 

17. See notes on lines I and 3. 


[39.] i9~[40] 8. 'The cultivators shall not be allowed to sell either 
sesame or croton to any persons other than the contractors . . . and the 
contractors shall give the comarch a sealed receipt for what they have 
received from each cultivator ; if they do not give him the receipt, the 
comarch shall not allow the produce to leave the village. If he disobeys 
this rule, he shall pay 1000 drachmae to the Treasury, and five times the 
amount of the loss which his action may have caused, to the contractors.' 

[40.] 3. See note on [39] 13 ; line 7 also shows that the contractors 
are meant. a7ro0-</>payio-/ua : cf. [31] 17. 
5. Trpoteo-flco : cf. [27] 1 1 . 

[40.] 9-20. ' The contractors shall sell the oil in the country at the 
rate of 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil containing 12 chocs and 
for a metretes of cnecus-oil, accepting payment in copper, and at the rate 
of 30 dr. for a metretes of cici, colocynth oil, and lamp oil ' (altered 
to 'The contractors shall sell the oil -in the country, both sesame oil, 
cnccus oil, cici, colocynth oil, and lamp oil at the rate of 48 dr. for 
a metretes of 12 choes, accepting payment in copper, and 2 obols for 
a cotyle '). In Alexandria and the whole of Libya they shall sell it at 
the rate of 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil, and 48 dr. for a metretes 
of cici (altered to '. . . 48 dr. for a metretes of sesame oil and cici, and 
2 obols for a cotyle'), and they shall provide an amount sufficient to meet 
the demands of buyers, selling it throughout the country in all the towns 
and villages, (measuring it) by measures which have been tested by the 
oeconomus and antigrapheus.' 

9. That the government were able to suddenly raise the price of the 
inferior oils more than 50 per cent., making them equal in value to the 
superior oils, shows the gulf which separates ancient from modern political 
economy. It is difficult to see why any one should have bought e.g. oil 
of colocynth, when he could get sesame oil at the same price. As M. 
suggests, it was probably with the object of maintaining the demand for 
sesame oil that the government levelled up the price of cici, colocynth, 
and lamp oil to that of sesame and cnecus oil. 

10. irpos x a ^ KOv: see App. iii- To anticipate, this passage means 
that 288 of the large copper coins which represent the obol (or an 
equivalent amount of the smaller ones) would be accepted as the 
equivalent of 48 silver drachmae, although in reality 48 drachmae thus 



paid in copper were worth about 10 per cent, less than 48 drachmae 
paid in silver. Since however the contractors of the oil monopoly not 
only received payments in copper but made them in copper to the 
government, [58] 6, the loss by the exchange fell on the government, 
not on them. The eAatfoj u>vr\ was in fact an u>vr\ Trpos \a\Kov KTOVOIJ.OV, 
cf. L. P. 62 [5] 1 9. Literally irpos XO.XKOV means ' against copper/ 
cf. x a ^ KOV irpos apyvpiov, and my explanation of it in App. iii p. 204. 

The Petrie papyri have as yet yielded no information concerning the 
price of oil in the third century B.C., which, as the correction here shows, 
varied largely from year to year. The Sakkakini papyrus however, 
of the third century B.C. (Rev. R. E. iii. 89), mentions frequently the 
payment of i obol for cici. M. Revillout suggests that the amount was 
2 cotulae, which would make the price of a metretes 12 ^drachmae. 
This suits his conclusions about the price of oil in the next century, but 
is hardly compatible with the 30 dr., still less with the 48 dr., which the 
Revenue Papyrus states to be the price of a metretes of cici. I should 
therefore suggest that the obol was the price of i cotyle or at most of 
i cotyle. On the price of oil in the second century B.C. see note on 
[51] 12. 

iT(X\vxvi.ov : see note on [39] 7. While the retail price of oil is here 
fixed at 48 dr. vpos -^a\Kov, the contractors did not receive 48 drachmae, 
as most of the selling, if not the whole, was done by small traders, [47] 
j o sqq., to whom the contractors sold the oil by auction. 

ii. On the metretes of 12 choes see notes on [25] 8, [31] 6, and 
[55] 8. 

14. TraoTji : i. e. including the atp^pio-^vrj, the produce of which was 
reserved for Alexandria, [60] 10 and [61] 3. It is obvious that the 
nome Libya had no very clearly defined boundary. Cf. [37] 5 note. 

15. Cnecus, colocynth, and linseed oil are omitted, though they must 
have been required in Alexandria, cf. [53] 22, and [58] i note. Probably 
they were sold at the same price as sesame oil and cici ; cf. [42] 4 

16. TI]V written above /ZTJ means that TTJV 8e KoruXTjy, written in line 15, 
comes in here. Cf. [41] 27 and [43] 25, where, a note having been 
inserted, the next few letters of the following sentence are written in 
order to fix the place of the note. 

19. Cf. the similar precaution in [25] 10. 


[41.] 3-13. 'They shall exhibit the land sown to the contractor in 
conjunction with the oeconomus and antigrapheus, and if, after surveying 
it, they find that the right number of arourae has not been sown, both 
the nomarch and the toparch and the oeconomus and the antigrapheus 
shall, each of them who is responsible, pay a fine of two talents to the 
Treasury, and to the contractors for each artaba of sesame which they 
ought to have received 2 dr., and for each artaba of croton i dr., together 
with the surplus of the oil and the cici. The dioecetes shall exact the 
payment from them.' 

3. airo6fiaTO)(rai; : i. e. the nomarch and toparch ; cf. [43] 3. 

5. TO TrAtjflos: the number decreed in [60]-[72]. Only sesame and 
croton are meant in this column. 

10. The reference is to [39] 13-18. 

11. TO TTiyvr]fjM TOV f\aiov is the whole difference between the cost 
price and the selling price of sesame oil, not merely the share of this 
surplus which the contractors received as pay for their trouble in super- 
intending the manufacture, cf. [45] 2 note, and [55] 9. It was this 
surplus which the contractors had agreed to pay to the Treasury, and 
they are here completely secured against loss from a deficiency in the 
crop, cf. note on [39] 14. c \aiov, when coupled with KIKI, means sesame 
oil here, as in [51] 21, 24, [53] 20, [57] 16, and [60] 16; cf. B. M. 
pap. xxi. 24. In [47] 14 and [48] 4, however, fhaiov appears to include 
all the oils except cici, for cnecus, colocynth, and lamp oil must have 
been distributed to the KciTnjAoi like sesame oil and cici. This argument 
is not conclusive, since in several places cnecus, colocynth, and lamp oil 
are ignored, and we are left to assume the arrangements concerning 
them from the regulations concerning sesame and cici ; see [42] 4 note. 
But [47] 7 cicaoTov ycvovs, not (Karcpov, is strongly in favour of more than 
two oils being meant; cf. [42] 12 CKCO-TCI Kara yews, where at least three 
kinds of produce are referred to, and [54] 23, where fnaorov yerovs means 
all the five kinds of produce mentioned in [39] 1-7. That the phrase 
TO (\aiov KCU KIKI was felt even at the time to be ambiguous, is shown by 
[49] 1 8, where TO t\aiov ought from the context to include cnecus oil as 
well as sesame, and it is more probable that the first hand intended it to 
do so than that he omitted cnecus oil by mistake. But the corrector 
was not satisfied with the clearness of the phrase, for after TO c\cuov he 
inserted TO oTjaa/xirov TJ TO KVTJKIVOV. 

S 2 


It follows from this frequent use of eXaiov for sesame oil that where 
fXaiov is found in papyri of this period, meaning one kind of oil, the 
presumption is that sesame oil is meant: e.g. P. P. part I, 78. 7. 

13. On the dioecetes see note on [38] 3. eo> opa at the end of the 
line, ' look outside,' calls attention to the fact that a note on the verso is 
to be inserted at this point : cf. [43] 2. 

[41.] 20-27. ' The contractor shall give orders with respect to the 
sesame and croton to be grown for other nomes, and (if the due amount 
is not sown) the dioecetes shall exact the amount from the officials who 
have received the orders, and shall pay it to those nomes which ought 
to have received the sesame and croton '. (Added by the corrector.) 

20. Though the lacunae are too great to be filled up with any 
certainty, this section clearly supplements the foregoing one, and pro- 
vides for the case in which the deficiency affected the sesame and croton 
to be grown for other nomes. Since some nomes did not grow enough 
sesame for their own consumption, e.g. the Heracleopolite, [70] 13, while 
many of them did not grow enough, or even any, croton, e. g. Libya 
[61] 7, and the Nitriote nome, [61] 22, the deficiency was made good by 
making other nomes grow more than was required for their own con- 
sumption. It is noticeable that the case of sesame and croton being 
thus transferred from one nome to another is not provided for in the 
original draft of [39]-[56], but is frequently mentioned in the Stoptfco^ara, 
as here, [43] 21, and [57] 8-13, where the general regulation concerning 
it is laid down. 

The use of e8ei and ei<T7rpaa? and the mention of the dioecetes, all 
agreeing with 3-13, show that 20-27 refer only to the case in which the 
proper number of arourae had not been sown, and are not a general 

21. The letters at the end of the line do not suit Trpov ; the papyrus 
is deeply stained here, and I am not certain that the piece containing 
the end of this line is in its correct place. 

27. Cf. note on [40] 16. 

[41.] 14-19. 'Before the season comes for sowing the sesame and 
croton, the oeconomus shall give the official in charge of the distribution 
of crops, be he nomarch or toparch,. if he desires it, for the seed sufficient 
for sowing an aroura of sesame 4 drachmae, and for the seed sufficient 


for an aroura of croton 2 drachmae, and he shall transport the seed 
from the store instead of ..." 

16. vo/ios I consider is here equivalent to VO//TJ in the sense of 'distri- 
bution,' as it is in the sense of * pasture,' cf. Hesych. Xojxtfo, vo\i.r\v ; and 
[43] 3, where rutv apovptav probably goes with vopov, not <ntopov ; and 
P. P. xxx (d), a list made out by a nomarch of various crops sown in 
the Fayoum. The Fayoum was for this purpose divided into several 
i, called after their respective nomarchs ; e. g. there is the 
NIKCOVOJ in P. P. part I. 62 (2) 4; Aioyevous in part II. 46. 8; 
, <t>iAiir7rou, and Maifxaxou in xxxix. Not until the second century 
B.C. do we find the nomarch often identified with the strategus, and 
therefore chief of the 'nome.' I am fully aware of the boldness of 
taking vopov here in any other sense than that of ' nome,' though ' nome ' 
itself of course originally meant a ' division.' But the difficulty of taking 
jrpofOTTjKwy TOU vopov here as ' chief of the nome ' appears to me over- 
whelming. The absence of an article before roirapxtj' shows that the 
phrase ran irpoeorr/jcon rou vopov applies as much to the toparch as to the 
nomarch, i.e. the 'chief of the nome' could be either a nomarch or 
a toparch, cf. [43] 3, where the nomarch need not be ' chief of the nome,' 
and [24] 6 note. Now, since we know from the Petrie papyri that there 
were several nomarchs in a nome, the phrase o TrpoeorrjKeos rov vofj.ov would 
mean that one of these nomarchs occupied a superior position to the 
others, and that he is the person referred to here and in [43] 3, while in 
the other passages the ordinary nomarchs are meant. This draws an 
artificial distinction between two kinds of nomarchs, which does not in 
the least suit the passages where they are mentioned in this papyrus or 
elsewhere. On the other hand, if this difficulty is avoided by taking the 
phrase ' chief of the nome ' as applicable to all nomarchs, the phrase 
becomes purely otiose in this passage, except in so far as it applies to 
the toparch, and the papyrus is self-contradictory, for in [43] 3 it is 
stated that the ' chief of the nome ' is not always the nomarch. But if 
the difficulty of the phrase ' chief of the nome,' even as applied to the 
nomarch, is great, the difficulty of applying it equally to the toparch, 
a consequence which necessarily follows from the absence of the article 
before Ton-apxrji, is much greater. There are only two possible con- 
ditions under which a toparch could be ' chief of the nome.' Either 
there were some nomes in which there were no nomarchs at all, and 


their functions were performed by toparchs, or the nomarchs might all 
be away on leave and hence a toparch might become for a time ' chief of 
the nome.' For, as has been shown, there were several nomarchs at any 
rate in the Fayoum, and if only one went away, his place would obviously 
be filled by another nomarch, not by a toparch who was necessarily 
subordinate to a nomarch. But both of these suppositions are equally 
unsatisfactory. So far from it being probable that certain nomes had 
no nomarchs, all the evidence we have points to their being universal, 
while we know for certain that in some nomes there are no toparchs, see 
Strabo 787 els yap ro-napxtas ol TrAeto-roi (vojiot) Siifprj^ro. Nor can [42] 
5-6 be taken as an argument for the non-existence of nomarchs in certain 
nomes, for (i) ou in line 6 refers to places, not to whole nomes, and (2) 
that passage implies that where there were no nomarchs there were also 
no toparchs, cf. vopapxai TJ ro7rapx a ' in line 6 with ran vop.apxrji, KCU ran 
TOTrapxn'- in line 5. As for the alternative supposition that the nomarchs 
were for a time absent, we are forced to believe not only that all the 
nomarchs could be away at once, which is very unlikely, but that their 
absence was a matter of frequent occurrence, since it was necessary to 
provide for the contingency, and further that, when a toparch was acting 
for a nomarch under these circumstances, he could be called ' chief of the 
nome.' But it is hardly credible that the toparch should have thus 
usurped the title of the nomarch ; moreover, if the writer of the papyrus 
had meant that the toparch was for the moment acting-nomarch, he would 
have used o Trapa or some such phrase. On the other hand, all these 
difficulties are avoided by supposing that rojuou is here and in [43] 3 
equivalent to I/O/XT;, a meaning which not only suits the context in both 
cases, but is perfectly consistent with the duties of nomarchs, so far as 
they can be gathered from the Petrie papyri. The phrase ' chief of the 
nome ' would apply with much greater propriety to the strategus. 

17. I have taken (mopov here as equivalent to a-jrcpfjia, cf. [43] 4, 
and perhaps [42] 16. Elsewhere it means the 'crop': e. g. [41] 3. 
It is not clear why the nomarch should receive this money, or who is the 
subject of Ko/zte<r0&>, which may mean simply ' receive.' If it is o irpo- 
eoTTjKoos, cf. [32] 10 note. In [43] 3 it is the nomarch who distributes the 
seed to the cultivators : cf. App. ii (3). The first few letters of lines 17 
and 1 8 have now disappeared. 

19. aXo) : see note on [39] 9. 


[42.] 3~[43] 2. ' When the season comes for gathering the sesame, 
croton, and cnecus, the cultivators shall give notice to the nomarch and 
the toparch, or where there are no nomarchs or toparchs to the oeco- 
nomus ; and these officials shall summon the contractor, and he shall go 
with them to the fields and assess the crop. The peasants and the other 
cultivators shall have their different kinds of produce assessed before 
they gather it, and shall make a double contract, sealed, with the con- 
tractor, and every peasant shall enter on oath the amount of land which 
he has sown with seed of each kind, and the amount of his assessment, 
and shall seal the contract, which shall also be sealed by the representa- 
tive of the nomarch or toparch.' 

3. Cf. [24] 15, the parallel regulation for cultivators of vineyards. 

4. This passage and line 16 show that cnecus, whatever it was, did 
not grow wild, but was cultivated like sesame and croton. The omission 
of colocynth and linseed is a difficulty which arises in several places, 
cf. line 12, [40] 15, [43] 18, [44] 6, [46] 17, [49] 17, [53] 10, 15. But 
the inference to be drawn is not that the regulations were inapplicable 
to colocynth and linseed, but that the regulations for them were parallel 
to those for sesame, croton, and cnecus. See [43] 14 TO Aoiira <o/ma, 
while only cnecus is mentioned in 18 ; and [57] 18, where cnecus oil is 
unaccountably omitted ; and cf. notes on [41] u, [57] 16. 

6. This class of places where there were no nomarchs or toparchs, 
included, as L. suggests, besides Alexandria, the cities with a Greek 
constitution (e.g. Naucratis which was distinct from the Saite nome, 
[CO] 1 8, and Ptolemais in the Thebaid), and possibly the places ruled 
by Libyarchs, [37] 5. The Thebaid, the government of which was 
peculiar to itself, being ruled by a Tj/3apxos (Lumb. Rec. p. 239), con- 
tained roTrapx"" in the next century, Wilck. Observ. pp. 24-30. Cf. the 
passage in Strabo quoted in note on [41] 16. 

8. There is no difference intended between o tx <01/ and o 5iotKo>i> TTJU 
u>vj]v : see [24] j 7 note. 

9. apovpas, ' fields ': cf Rev. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. December, 1891, 
p. 65. 

II. Aaoi are the fellaheen : cf. L. P. 63. 100 TU>V cv TOIS /caucus *caroi- 
KOVVTW \a<0v, and P. P. 14. 4. TipaffdoHrav is probably passive, as in line 
17. The method of assessment resembles that for cultivators of vineyards 
[25] 1-2, rather than that for cultivators of orchards [29] 6. 


13. TJ is omitted by mistake after Trportpov: on the uncorrected 
blunders of this scribe see note on [48] 9. 

15. 8177X771; : see [27] 5 note. 

1 7. opKov: sc.a<riA.iKov; cf.the demotic contract quoted in note on [39] 8. 

20. awctTTooraAeis : this does not imply that the nomarch was there : 
see note on [27] 13. 

[43.] 2. efco opa : see [41] 13 note. 

[43.] 20-25. 'The crop of sesame and croton assigned to the culti- 
vators to be grown for other nomes shall be assessed by the oeconomus 
and antigrapheus, who shall receive the sesame and croton from the 
cultivators ' (added by the corrector). 

20. biaypa(f)VTo$ : i. e. in [60]-[72] ; cf. [41] 20 note. The tax on 
sesame and croton grown for other nomes belonged to the contractors 
of the nome to which the produce was transferred, [57] 7-13. Hence it 
was not allowed to pass through the hands of the contractors in the 
nome where it was grown. Cf. [60] u, where the oeconomus, not the 
contractor, receives the produce grown fv TTJI a^copio-^ez^ji. 

25. Cf. [40] 16 note. 

[43.] 3-10. ' The nomarch or official in charge of the distribution of 
crops shall give out the seed to each cultivator sixty days before the 
crop is gathered. If he fails to do so or to show the cultivators who 
have sown the assigned number of arourae, he shall pay the contractor 
the fine which has been decreed, and shall recover his loss by exacting 
it from the disobedient cultivators.' 

3. Cf. [41] 1 6 note. 8oro> does not imply that it was more than 
a loan : see App. ii (3) 2-4. 

5. The sixty days do not apply to croton, which takes a long time to 
grow, or to cnecus, colocynth and flax, the amount of which was not 
fixed, cf. note on [39] 14. It is remarkable that sesame and croton are 
treated throughout the papyrus as precisely parallel, although the one 
had to be sown every year, and the other lasted several years. 

6. TrapeurxTjrai : cf. [51] 8, where too the middle is (probably) found 
in place of the active. 

7. biaypafav : i.e. in [60]-[72], though the list of nomes to which 
the scribe was referring before the corrections took place was different ; 
see note on [38] i and [57] 6. yeypajujueva : see [41] 9-12. 


[43.] 11-19. 'All persons throughout the country who are exempt 
from taxation, or hold villages and land in gift, or receive the revenues 
therefrom as income, shall measure out all the sesame and croton 
assigned to them, and the other kinds of produce included in the 
oil-monopoly, leaving a sufficient amount for next year's seed ; and they 
shall be paid the value of it in copper coin, at the rate of 6 dr. for an 
artaba of sesame, 3 dr. 2 obols for an artaba of croton, I dr. for an 
artaba of cnecus.' 

ii. arcXeiy: e.g. the Fayoum was exempt, so far as the produce 
which it grew for the Memphite nome was concerned : see note on 
[69] i. 

ev b<ap(ai: cf. note on [36] 15. tv <rwrai : wvrafis means a 'con- 
tribution,' especially for religious purposes ; see the Serapeum papyri, 
Ros. stone 15, and Rev. R. E. I. 59. L. suggests that the difference 
between villages tv bupeai and villages fv owra^ei was that in the latter 
case only the revenues were assigned to a person (cf. the case of 
Themistocles who received the revenues of five cities, Athen. i. 30), while 
in the former, besides the revenues, the whole village was made over, 
including the duty of administering it. Cf. [44] 3, where it is stated that 
no oil factories are to be set up in villages tv bvpeai. This shows that 
the administration of villages tv bupecu was not quite the same as that of 
ordinary villages, from which villages er <rvvTafi are not there distin- 
guished ; and I prefer Lumbraso's explanation to those suggested by 
M. Introd. p. xxxviii. In any case the holders of land ei> owro&iwere no 
doubt mainly, if not wholly, the priests, cf. [50] 20, while holders of land 
fv txapfai were court favourites. 

13. ycvonevov : there is no reason to think that the arcAei? were 
allowed greater freedom in the choice of crops than other cultivators. 
For this use of y(vop.cvov as ' due ' cf. [30] 21, [37] 16, [56] 19, but in all 
these cases the present participle is used, and perhaps yivontvov here 
merely means what they have grown. 

16. 7iy>os \aXK.ov: cf. note on [40] 10, and App. iii pp. 194-198. 

17. In the case of sesame, since the arcXets only received 6 dr. instead 
of 8 paid to the ordinary cultivators, [39] 3, who had, [39] 18, to give 
back 2 dr. as tax, their areAeia was purely nominal ; cf. note on [39] 14. 
With regard to croton they were slightly better off than the ordinary 
cultivators, receiving 3 dr. 2 obols instead of 3 drachmae net. On 



the other hand, in the case of cnecus they were actually worse off, 
receiving only i dr. instead of i dr. 2 obols. Colocynth and linseed are 
as usual omitted, cf. note on [42] 4, though they must have been included 
in ra AoiTra </>opna. Probably the areAets received the same amount for 
these as the v7roreA.eis, since there was no tax on them ; but the case of 
cnecus is remarkable. 

1 9. The apodosis is probably ' they shall pay the deficiency ' ; cf. 
line 10. It is unlikely that there is here a reference to their keeping 
back sesame and croton and so violating the monopoly, for that is 
discussed in [49] 16 sq'q. 

[44.] ' The oeconomus and antigrapheus shall appoint ... to be 
a factory and shall seal their choice by stamping it. But in villages 
which are held as a gift from the Crown they shall not set up an 
oil factory. They shall deposit in each factory the requisite amount 
of sesame, croton, and cnecus. They shall not allow the workmen 
appointed in each nome to cross over into another nome ; any workman 
who crosses over shall be subject to arrest by the contractor and the 
oeconomus and antigrapheus. No one shall harbour workmen from 
another nome ; if any one does so knowingly or fails to send back 
workmen when he has been ordered to restore them, he shall pay 
a fine of 3000 dr. for each workman, and the workman shall be subject 
to arrest.' 

i. A comparison of [45] 7 and 13 with [44] 4 shows that the oeco- 
nomus and antigrapheus are the subject. 

3. See note on [43] 1 1 . 

5. Cf. an ostracon in Prof. Sayce's collection published by Wilck. 
Akt. p. 59, dated the thirty-fifth year of Euergetes II, in which 
Asclepiades, probably o Ttpos r?jt eAcuoupyicu, i. e., if the law was still the 
same, the chief contractor, gives a receipt to Heracleides, probably 
a yeo>pyos, but possibly the oeconomus, for Kporo>i>[os] ft, as Wilck. now 
reads, the sign for artaba being omitted. 

1 6. 7n0raA;ro? : Wilck. Cf. the frequent use of fiovXoptvov in [25] i, 
[28] 10 et al. avayayr] : cf. [22] 2, note. 

[45.] i-i2. ' . . . and from the surplus of the oil that is sold (altered 
to 'manufactured'), the oeconomus shall divide among the workmen 
for every metretes containing 1 2 choes 3 dr. (altered to ' 2 dr. 3 obols.') 


Of this sum the workmen and the men who cut the crop shall receive 
2 dr. (altered to * i dr. 4 obols'), and the contractors i dr. (altered 
to '5 obols'). But if the oeconomus or his representative fails to pay 
the workmen their wages, or their share in the profits from the sale 
of the oil, he shall pay a fine of 3000 dr. to the Treasury, and to the 
workmen their pay, and to the contractors twice the amount of the 
loss which they may have incurred on account of the workmen.' 

2. There is not room for TOU 7rtyerrj^aros : probably the first scribe 
wrote yfrq/xaro? by mistake, and <TTI was added by the corrector, for 
yerrjpuiTos is meaningless and in [55] 9 and 13, which clearly refer back 
to this passage, f-niytv^a is found. As the phrase in line 9, TO /xe/xepi- 
atro TTJJ irpaa-fats (cf. [55] 9 ro <rvvTtTay\*.tvov p.cpirdai airo TOV 
shows, the surplus here was the profit on every metretes 
of oil sold after the expenses of production had been deducted, cf. 
[41] ii, and [39] 14, note, and is quite different from the 7riyerj/xa 
of A and B. 

3. KaTcpya&ntvov : cf. [56] 19-21, a regulation which ought to have 
come in here to the effect that no share of the profit was to be paid 
to the workmen for the oil that was stored, on which see note on 
[53] 5- 

5. The construction is not very logical. The contractors are men- 
tioned here without having been mentioned in line 3, and nothing is 
said in lines 7-12 of the compensation which they are to receive, if 
the oeconomus does not pay them, for line 1 1 refers only to compensation 
for loss inflicted on them through the workmen not being paid. The 
reason is that here the payment of the workmen is the subject and 
the payment of the contractors incidental. The salary of the latter 
is discussed in [55]. 

It is interesting to note that in this, one of the earliest examples 
of profit-sharing, the workmen received more than the ' entrepreneurs.' 
The author of this law, whether Soter or Philadelphus, certainly favoured 
the fellaheen at the expense of the richer classes or the foreign settlers, 
who in most cases farmed the taxes. 

Koireis : a new sense of this word ; cf. Herodotus' description of the 
manufacture of cici, ii. 94 TOVTOV tirfav mbA/^mmu, di ptv xfyavrts 
aTTiTrovo-i, ot 8* Kal (j>pvavT($ airtyowi. The Revenue Papyrus gives no 
details about roasting the seeds. 

T 2 


8. KaTfpyov: wages for piece work, cf. [46] 18-20, while jzi<r0os is 
a general term, ' pay.' Cf. line 1 1 where nivQov includes both narepyov 
and the share of the profits ; [55] 14-15, where it differs from narepyov 
as 'salary' from 'wages'; [46] 2, note; and LXX Exod. 30. 16, and 
35. 21 TO KaTfpyov TT/S OTCTJI/TJS. From the way in which the Karepyov 
is mentioned here, we should expect that it had been fixed in the 
lost top of [45] ; but see [46] 18, note. 

[45.] 13-18. 'If the oeconomus and antigrapheus fail to set up oil 
factories in accordance with these regulations, or to deposit a sufficient 
quantity of produce, thus inflicting a loss on the contractors, both 
the oeconomus and antigrapheus shall be fined the amount of the 
deficit which results, and shall pay the contractors twice the amount 
of the loss incurred.' 

14. TrapaOtoVTai : cf. [44] 5 

16. rr]v eybeiav : sc. eis ro fiacnXiKov, cf. [40] 7, and [41] 9. 

[45.] I9~[46] 20. 'The oeconomus and antigrapheus shall provide 
tools for each factory, .... when the oeconomus visits the factory in. 
order to pay the wages (?), he shall not interfere with the work in 
any way to the damage of the contractors. If he fails to provide tools, 
or damages the interests of the contractors in any way, he shall be 
judged before the dioecetes, and if he is found guilty, he shall pay (to 
the Treasury) a fine of two talents of silver, and (to the contractors) 
twice the amount of the damage which he has caused. The contractors 
and the clerk appointed by the oeconomus and antigrapheus shall have 
joint authority over all the workmen in the nome, and over the factories 
and the plant, and they shall seal up the tools during the time when 
there is no work. They shall compel the workmen to work every 
day, and shall supervise them in person, and they shall every day 
make into oil not less than i artabae of sesame (altered to ' i artaba') 
in each mortar, and 4 artabae of croton, and i of cnecus, and they 
shall pay the workmen as wages for making 4 artabae of sesame, 
into oil . . ., for . . artabae of croton 4 drachmae, and for . . artabae of 
cnecus 8 drachmae.' 

[45.] 19. The fragment containing ]KOI;O/ J I[ and ]a<r[ has disappeared. 
Cf. [46] 4 and n, \opr\yrn and Karao-/cwj?. 

[46.] 2. If KaTKDv is right and goes with narepyov, it is difficult to 


take Kartpyov in its ordinary sense, cf. [45] 8 note. M. suggests that 
it here means the ' work,' i. e. if the oeconomus visited the factory while 
the work was proceeding, he was not to interfere, and compares P. P. 
7. 8 (ypa\lra <roi o bet. 8o0Tjrcu is a<rroi> apyov KCLI TO Karepyov, which 
he thinks means 'working time' as opposed to 'time when there is 
no work,' cf. [46] 12. But the ordinary meaning, 'wages' is equally 
possible there, and therefore I hesitate to depart here from the ascertained 
meaning of Karepyov. 

6. The mention of silver here and in [47] 8 does not imply that other 
fines were trpos \CL\KOV. 

10. T]OTTO)I is an equally possible reading. 

11. napacrcppayi&a-doMTa.v : see note on [26] 7- 

14. Ka.Tfpya((rOa><Tav: the subject may be the workmen, cf. note on 
[32] 10; but KciTfpya&o-Ocu is not applied to the workmen only, see 
[57] 19. 

1 8. KdTfpyov might be expected in the lacuna, since KaTepyae<r0axrai; 
has just been mentioned, but there is not room for it, and against the 
hypothesis that the sums here represent the wages of the workmen 
is to be set the fact that Karcpyov is spoken of in [45] 8 as if it had 
been already fixed, and that the wages were paid by the oeconomus, 
not the contractors, [45] 7, while the subject of a-nobiboTaxrav is apparently 
the contractors and the clerk. But see [53] 25 note. Colocynth oil 
and lamp oil are once more ignored ; in fact in [44]-[47] 9, the section 
dealing with the manufacture of oil, they are never mentioned. But 
it is hardly possible that the conditions of their manufacture were different ; 
cf. note on [42] 4, and [54] 23~[55] I, where the manufacture of all 
five kinds is implied. 

[47.] 1-9. ' No arrangement with the workmen regarding the flow 
of the oil shall be made either by the oeconomus or the contractor 
under any pretext whatever, nor shall the tools in the factories be 
left unsealed during the time when there is no work. If they make 
an arrangement with any of the workmen, or leave the tools unsealed, 
each of the guilty parties shall pay a fine of i talent to the Treasury, 
and to the contractors the amount of their loss if the contract results 
in a deficit.' 

i. pva-is : cf. [60] 15, which probably refers to this passage. It is 
there stated that, if the flow resulted in a surplus, this surplus belonged 


to the Treasury. But it is not clear whether that section alters, or 
whether it merely supplements, the previously existing law. There is 
nothing in [39]-[56], so far as they are preserved, to show what was 
to be done with a surplus resulting from the 'flow of the oil.' The 
case does not seem to have been contemplated, though if it went to 
the contractors it is perhaps covered by [53] 12-15, since, if there was 
an unexpectedly large amount of oil, there would be the more left 
over when the term of the contract expired. But in that case I do 
not understand the anxiety of the government to prevent the contractors 
from coming to terms with the workmen about the amount of oil to 
be made from the seed provided ; for it would be to the contractor's 
interest that the output should be as large as possible. On the other 
hand, if this surplus went to the Treasury in accordance with [60] 15, 
and the object of that passage is only to make the point clear, not to 
alter the law, the anxiety of the government to prevent a limit being 
placed on the output of oil is intelligible. Then however the difficulty 
arises that this passage, if taken by itself, rather implies the absence 
of any fixed ratio of oil expected from the seed, while on the other 
hand irXfiov in [60] 15 implies that there was a fixed ratio (cf. note 
on [60] 25), and if the ratio was mentioned anywhere it must have 
been mentioned at the top of this column, since it was certainly not 
mentioned in the bLopO<Dfj.a. On the whole it seems to me least difficult 
to suppose the ratio was fixed here at the top of the column, but the 
question of the surplus was left open, i. e. it was not separated from 
the other oil manufactured, and that [60] 15 is a real correction, altering 
the previous law. 

9. Cf. [17] i cav be o firava) ^povos eySeiay 771 TreTroiTjKco?, and note 
on [22] 2. 

[47.] io-[48] 2. 'The clerk appointed by the oeconomus and 
antigrapheus shall register the names of the dealers in each city and 
of the retailers, and shall arrange with them in conjunction with the 
contractors how much oil and cici they are to take and sell from day to 
day. In Alexandria they shall come to an arrangement with the traders, 
and they shall make a contract with each of them, with those in the 
country every month, with those in Alexandria . . .' 

n. The difference between KcnrTjAoi and )meraj8oXot on the one hand, 
and TroAijixTrparowTes on the other, depends on the place where they 


carried on their trade, the KOTO/AOI and /btera/SoAoi trading in the 
and MUCH throughout the country, and the 7raAtfi7r/xirQujrry, who were no 
doubt as M. suggests large shop-keepers, in Alexandria. Whether the 
distinction between the xaTnjAoi and the fUra/3oAoi is on the same lines, 
is somewhat doubtful. For though from a comparison of [47] 10, n 
with [48] 3, 4, we might conclude that the KcnnjAoi traded in the TroAeis, 
and the /zera/3oAoi in the villages, the mention of KCOJXTJ in [48] 6 refer- 
ring to both KaTTT/Aoi and /uera/3oAoi is against this supposition. The 
objection however is far from being fatal ; the language of the Revenue 
Papyrus is often inexact, as is shown by the frequent omission of the 
less important oils ; and since the iroAeiy are mentioned in [47] 12 they 
must in any case be understood in [48] 6, though not expressed. M. 
suggests that the neTa(3o\oi sold by barter, but we have no evidence 
of selling by barter in the papyri of this period. 

15. KaO rinepav: perhaps by the same writer as the rest of the 

j 7. Between the o-vimif ts and the <nr/ypa^rj, at any rate in the case 
of the KOTiTjAoi and /zcra/3oAoi, intervened an auction, [48] 13-18. 

1 8. That the agreement with 01 cv rrji %<opai was for a month is 
shown by [48] 5 : probably that with 01 tv A\(avbpfiai was for a longer 
period ; see note on [48] 13. 

[48.] 2. This probably refers to the money paid by the TraAijz- 
Trparowres at Alexandria to the oeconomus and antigrapheus, and 
credited by them to the account of the contractors at the royal bank. 
Cf. [48] 10 and [31] 14 note. KaraxwptC* "^ is probably passive, as there 
is no instance in the papyrus of this verb in the middle voice, o xafo- 
o-rrjKcuy, cf. [47] io, is therefore inadmissible. 

[48.] 3~[49] 4. 'The amount of oil and cici which the dealers and 
retailers in each village agree to dispose of, shall be conveyed by the 
oeconomus and antigrapheus before the month arrives to each village, 
each kind of oil being conveyed ; and they shall there measure it out 
to the dealers and retailers every five days, and shall receive payment, 
if possible, on the same day, but if not, they shall exact payment before 
the five days have elapsed, and pay the money to the royal bank, the 
expenses of the transport of the oil being defrayed at the cost of the 
contractors. The oil which it has been arranged that each of the 


dealers and retailers shall take, shall be put up to auction ten days 
before the month arrives, and they shall write out and publish the 
highest bid for each day during ten days in both the metropolis of 
the nome and the village, and shall make a contract with the highest 

5. 5ia07jo-eo-0ai : cf. the phrase frequently recurring in [60]-[72] eis 
TTJV fv A\ 8ia0e<nz>, and Hdt. i. I 8iari0e<r0ai ra <o/ma. eAcuov : 
see note on [41] 1 1 : here it includes all the oils except cici. 

9. (<:\6ov<T(av was deciphered by Wilck. There can be little doubt 
that M. is right in supposing that et 5r/ /IT; is a mistake for ei 5e /xrj /XT/. 
The text as it stands gives just the opposite of the sense required. 
Though as a rule it is very unsafe to attribute blunders to the text, 
there is ample justification for doing so here, since in this column 
OIKOVOS is left uncorrected in line 5, and there is certainly a mistake 
in line 17. Cf. [43] 8, [49] 18, [51] 8, [55] 23, where the corrector has 
left blunders uncorrected, or made mistakes himself. 

ii. ro ainjAcojua: the singular is used in the papyrus where we should 
expect the plural, cf. [53] 25. 

13. These six lines probably refer only to the KcnrrjAoi and /^iera/3oAoi, 
cf. 15 with 6, unless the contract with the -n-aAi/zTrparowre? was also 
for a month. But in [47] 18 a contrast is drawn between 01 fv TTJI x<apcu 
and ot ev AAeaz;o>eiai, probably in reference to the length of the 
contract. Moreover tv re TTJI /ur;rpo7roAei K<H rrji KWJUTJI suits the nomes, 
not Alexandria, and if there was no auction in the case of the iraAi/u- 
TrpaTovvTfs at Alexandria, it is intelligible why this section is placed 
at the end , and not between the a-vvTagis and the o-vyypa^ in [47] 17. 
See also [55] 15, which shows that there were at Alexandria irpoTrwArjrai 
between the contractors and the -TraAi/nTrparowres. 

14. (TiLKripvo-acTtiHrav : cf. pap. Zois i. [2] 2: the scribe first wrote 

1 6. TO fvpio-Kov : cf. pap. Zois i. [2] i and L. P. 62 [6] 9, rov 
17. The simplest change is to read nvpuOevros ; for the genitive cf. 
the passages just quoted. 

On the price at which the eAcuo/cawr/Aoi bought the oil from the con- 
tractors see P. P. xxviii and App. iii p. 197. If my theory is correct, 
at the date of that papyrus they were buying it at 42 drachmae irpos 
V for a metretes. 


[49.] i. There are n inches of blank papyrus between this and 
the preceding column, and a new hand begins here, but it is not clear 
whether these four lines are connected with what precedes or with what 
follows. The writing of [49]-[51] is slightly different from that of 
[52]-[56], but I think that all these columns were written by the same 
scribe, who is probably different from the writer of [24]-[35], though 
there are many points of similarity between [~4]-[35] and [49]-[56]. 

If the word in the first line be intended for f\aioKanrj\oi, the sentence 
may run, as M. suggests, TrapaAa/*/3aroz/T(s ro cAatoi; TrajATjrroixri TI/XTJJ TTJS 
ycypaji/xezrjs tv ran Siaypa/u/xan KCU /XTJ TrAeioros, cf. P. P. 122, a letter 
from Horus, apparently an agent of the dioecetes, to Harmais about 
oil being sold at a higher price than the irpooray/xa allowed. In that 
case this section would be connected with the preceding columns. 
eAcuoca[7njAoi however is certainly not what the scribe wrote, and 
though he has in any case made a blunder and the letters are too 
much rubbed for any certainty, fAeuovpyoi seems to be the word meant. 
Moreover the gap between this column and the preceding one and 
the fact that the rest of this column is concerned with a new subject, 
possible violations of the monopoly, are all in favour of joining lines 
1-4 with what follows, especially as 01 cAaioupyoi are in any case the 
probable subject of the verb in line 5. 

[49.] 5~[50] 5- ' Nor shall they . . . mortars or presses or any other 
implements used in the manufacture of oil on any pretext whatever, 
under pain of paying a fine of 5 talents to the Treasury, and to the 
contractors five times the amount of the loss incurred by them. Those 
persons who already possess any of these implements, shall register 
themselves before the contractor and the agent of the oeconomus and 
antigrapheus within thirty days, and shall produce their mortars and 
presses for inspection. The contractors and the agent of the oeconomus 
and antigrapheus shall transfer these to the royal oil-factories. If any 
one is discovered manufacturing oil from sesame, croton, or cnecus under 
any circumstances, or buying oil and cici (altered to 'sesame oil, cnecus 
oil, or cici') from any persons other than the contractors, the king shall 
decide his punishment, and he shall pay the contractors 3000 dr. and 
be deprived of the oil and the produce ; the payment of the fine shall 
be exacted by the oeconomus and antigrapheus, who, if the offender 
is unable to pay, shall send him to (prison?).' 



5. [49]-[53] 3 deal with possible violations of the monopoly granted 
to the contractors, (i) by manufacture of oil by private individuals, 
[49]-[50] 5 : (2) by importation of foreign oil into Alexandria (?), 
[50] 6-13: (3) by adulteration, [50] 14-19: (4) by the action of the 
priests, who were allowed within certain limits to manufacture oil, 
[50] 20 [52] a : (5) by importation of foreign oil into the country, 
[52] 7 -[53] 3. 

1 8. 77 before aAAofoju should come before ro eXatov. On the correction 
see note on [41] n, and on the mistake TTJ for 77 note on [48] 9. 

[50.] 6-13. 'They shall not be allowed (to sell) the oil on any 
pretext, nor even to bring it into Alexandria beyond the Crown reposi- 
tory. If any persons introduce more oil than they will use up in three 
days for their own consumption, they shall be deprived of both the 
freight and the means of transport, and shall in addition pay a fine of 
100 dr. for each metretes, and for more or less in proportion.' 

6. The subject of this section appears to be foreign oil brought by 
sea to Alexandria to be consumed there : cf [52] 26 and [54] 17. The 
oil brought to Alexandria or Pelusium, which was to enter the country, 
is discussed in [52], where its importation for sale is absolutely forbidden, 
though it might be imported for personal use on payment of a duty. 
There is hardly any doubt however that oil brought to Alexandria to 
be consumed there paid no duty, [52] 26 note. On % the other hand the 
merchants who brought the oil were not allowed to sell it ; the oil was 
placed in official V7ro8oxia, [54] 18, which is the meaning of TO fiaa-iXiKov 
in line 8 here (cf. note on [28] 14), and the contractors superintended its 
sale, [54] 19. 

10. (fropriow is here clearly opposed to Tropacoy, and is not, as else- 
where, the raw material, i. e. the seeds as contrasted with the manu- 
factured product : TTO/JCUOZ; refers, as L. suggests, to ships in the first 
instance. For the regulation that oil brought overland to Alexandria 
should be duty-free occurs in a correction, [52] 25-29, and therefore was 
probably not contemplated by the writer of the first draft. But in the 
light of the correction iropeicor is general. 

[50.] 14-19. 'The cooks shall use up the lard every day in the 
presence of the contractor, and shall neither sell it as lard to any one on 
any pretext, nor melt it down, nor make a store of it. If they disobey, 


each of them shall pay the oil-contractor for every day that he keeps 
the lard, 50 drachmae ' (altered to ' each person who cither sells or buys 
it shall pay the oil contractor for every piece that is bought, 50 drachmae'). 

14. Like 01 e\aiovpyovvTcs cv rots i*poi? in line 20, the cooks are probably 
a distinct class, but it is difficult to see how this remarkable regulation 
was to be enforced, except in kitchens where cooking was done for 
a large number of people, e.g. for a regiment or at an inn. It is 
impossible that the kitchens in private houses were subject to the 
invasion of the tax-farmer. 

17. The enormous profit made by the government from the sale of 
oil, see [53] 16 note, must account for the adulteration of oil with animal 
fat. Nowadays it is the lard which is often adulterated with (cotton- 
seed) oil; cf. a paragraph in the Daily News for May 8, 1895, which 
was pointed out to me by Dr. Wright, on ' The adulteration of lard.' 

[50.] 20-[52] 3. ' Those who make oil in the temples throughout the 
country shall declare to the contractor and the agent of the oeconomus 
and antigrapheus the number of oil-factories in each temple and the 
number of mortars and presses in each workshop, and they shall exhibit 
the workshops for inspection, and bring their mortars and presses to be 
sealed up ... If they fail to declare the numbers, or to exhibit the work- 
shops, or to bring the mortars and presses to be sealed up, the officials 
in charge of the temples shall, each of them who is guilty, pay 3 talents 
to the Treasury, and to the contractors five times the amount of their 
loss according to the contractors' estimate of it. When they wish to 
manufacture sesame oil in the temples, they shall take with them the 
contractor and the agent of the oeconomus and antigrapheus, and shall 
make the oil in their presence. They shall manufacture in two months 
the amount which they declared that they would consume in a year ; 
but the cici which they consume they shall receive from the contractors 
at the fixed price. The oeconomus and antigrapheus shall send to the 
king a written account of both the cici and the oil required for the 
consumption of each temple, and shall also give a similar written account 
to the dioecetes. It shall be unlawful to sell to any one the oil which is 
manufactured for the use of the temples ; any person who disobeys this 
law shall be deprived of the oil, and shall in addition pay a fine of 100 dr. 
for every metretes, and for more or less in proportion.' 

[51.] 8. irapa<r<J>payi.&jLov : see notes on [48] 9 and [26] 7. 

U 2 


[51.] 9. 01 cm TO>V U/KOH rcray/tievoi : cf. Canop. Inscr. line 73 o 8 cv 
ro)i> iepo>v Ka^eorTjKws (ina-TaTrjs /cai ap\iptvs, and the eTnorarai TCDI; 
(L. P. 26. 23, and B. M. pap. xxxv. 24), who were responsible for 
paying the Twins their o-wrafis. 

12. If the present regulations remained in force under Philometor, 
a possible explanation is suggested for the substitution of one metretes 
of sesame oil for two of cici in B. M. pap. xvii. 54. It would have been 
much cheaper for the eTnorarat of the temple to supply sesame oil, which 
they manufactured themselves, than cici, which they had to buy from the 
contractors. In any case, if the temples retained the right of making 
sesame oil in the second century B.C., the value of sesame oil in relation 
to cici in the temples may well have differed from its value in the rest of 
Egypt. On the other hand, if the temples had lost the right, which M. 
thinks probable, as there is no mention of oil manufactured in the temples 
to be found in any of the Serapeum papyri, it is still quite doubtful 
whether the substitution of one metretes of sesame oil for two of cici was 
due to their being of equal value, as has been often assumed. The 
Revenue Papyrus does not favour the idea that cici was half the value of 
sesame, and the oft-quoted passage from B. M. pap. xvii. 54 is a very 
uncertain basis for generalizations. Cf. Rev. R. E. 1882, pp. 162-5. He 
there attempts to show that the price of cici in the second century varied 
between 1800 and 1300 copper drachmae, so that if the ratio of 
exchange was 1 20 : i (cf. App. iii), the price had fallen considerably. 
But none of the instances which he quotes give a definite number of 
drachmae as the price of a definite amount of oil, and they are therefore 
not very convincing. The inferior oils together with cnecus are ignored ; 
see note on [42] 4. Probably they are to be classed here with the cici, 
not with the sesame oil. 

1 8. The final t of KIKI is repeated by mistake. 

19. Kaflurra/zejTjs : in [40] 9 sqq. 

23. biboTua-av : usually airooreAAeiy is used in reference to the dioe- 
cetes ; cf. [18] 6 note. 

[52.] 4-6. This probably refers to some oil which the contractors 
took over when they entered on the contract. Cf. [53] 3. 

[52.] 7~[53] 3. 'No one shall be allowed to introduce foreign oil 
into the country for sale, whether from Alexandria or Pelusium or any 


other place. Offenders against this law shall both be deprived of the 
oil, and in addition pay a fine of 100 dr. for each metretes, and for less 
or more in proportion. If any persons bring with them foreign oil for 
their private use, those who enter the country from Alexandria shall 
register themselves at Alexandria, and pay a duty of 12 dr. for a 
metretes, and for less in proportion, and shall obtain a receipt for it 
before they bring it into the country. Those who enter the country 
from Pelusium shall pay the duty at Pelusium, and obtain a voucher 
for it. Those who collect the duties at Alexandria and Pelusium 
shall place the tax to the credit of the nome to which the oil is brought 
If any persons, when bringing oil with them for their personal use, fail 
to pay the duty or to carry with them the voucher, they shall both be 
deprived of the oil, and pay in addition a fine of 100 dr. for each metretes.' 
(Added by the corrector : ' Those merchants who transport foreign or 
Syrian oil from Pelusium across the country to Alexandria shall be 
exempt from the duty, but shall carry a voucher from the tax-collector 
appointed at Pelusium and the oeconomus, as the law requires ... If 
they fail to carry the voucher, they shall be deprived of the oil.') 

8. Though foreign oil was necessary to supply the wants of Alex- 
andria, [50] 6 and [54] 18, the rest of the country was protected against 
foreign competition. But it is doubtful how long the country remained 
self-sufficing, for in a papyrus published by Egger (Compt. Rend, de 
1'Acad. d. Inscr. N. S. iii. p. 314) Asclepiades, superintendent of the oil 
manufacture at Thebes, gives a receipt to the royal bank for 800 drachmae 
received for the carriage of 80 metretae eXaiou CI>IKOU. It is hardly likely 
that this oil was destined for Alexandria, and if it had been brought into 
the country eis tbiav xpeiav, the expenses of transport would not have 
been paid by the royal bank. 

15, The price of a metretes being 48 dr., the duty was 25 per cent., 
which confirms the passage in Arrian regarding the duty of 25 per cent, 
levied at Leuce Come on imports, quoted by L. Rec. p. 306. But 
Wilcken is right in objecting to L.'s explanation of the tax rtrapn] in 
L. P. 67 as an import duty. For an unpublished Petrie papyrus, in the 
same handwriting as P. P. xliii, has the heading Ttraprrj followed by 
a list of names with sums of money, and the payment of the Ttrap-n] in 
the Fayoum is consistent with W.'s theory that it was Tera/mj 
but hardly with the theory that it was a duty on imports. 


18. It is noticeable that none of the Red Sea ports are mentioned, 
nor is Sebennytus, which is coupled with Pelusium in [93] i. Most of 
the foreign oil came from Syria, where sesame is largely cultivated to 
this day: cf. line 26 and [54] 17. Olive oil probably formed a large 
part of the ZVIK.OV eXaioy distinguished from Syrian oil in line 26. As 
a commercial port Pelusium appears in this column and elsewhere to be 
no less important than Alexandria owing to the amount of the Syrian 
trade : of. [54] 1 7 note. 

21. The tax was paid to the contractors in the nome to which the 
oil was brought, as compensation for the diminished amount of oil sold 
in the nome. 

24. See note on [9] 3. 

26. TtapaKo^i^a-iv : i. e. through the country by land, or by canal, not 
by sea. This biopOwna is appended to the regulations concerning the 
introduction of oil into the \<t>pa, and meets the case of merchants who 
were bringing oil to Alexandria, as they were entitled to do, and who, if 
they brought it by sea direct would be exempt, but, if they wished to 
take it by land, might, according to the foregoing regulations, either be 
forbidden or be forced to pay the duty. The Sio/>0o>^a therefore decrees 
that these persons shall be arcXeis, i. e. like those who brought the oil 
direct to Alexandria. If 7rapaKo/uuaxn be taken as ' transport by sea,' we 
have to admit that for some reason those who took oil to Alexandria 
via Pelusium were favoured beyond those who brought it direct, and that 
the biopdtofjia is misplaced, for this column has to do with oil introduced 
into the x* / 30 - The other explanation, which gives a much better 
meaning, is based on the assumption that at Alexandria there was no 
duty upon oil imported direct from Syria or elsewhere for the con- 
sumption of the capital. This is not stated in [50], but neither is the 
reverse stated ; and, if the oil imported to Alexandria via Pelusium, 
whether by land or sea, was duty-free, the presumption is in favour of oil 
imported direct being also exempt. Moreover the persons appointed to 
watch over the importation of Syrian oil at Alexandria and Pelusium 
were avnypacpfis, not Aoyevrat, [54] 16. 

27. The AoyevrTj? was the representative of the contractors, see 
[13] i. 

28. tv TOH vofj.(ai: i.e. in 18-19: cf. note on [21] 10. The merchants 
had to carry the voucher, although they had not paid the duty. 


[53.] 4-17. 'The contractors shall receive the sesame and croton, of 
which a store (?) has been ordered for each nome, within three days from 
the day on which they take over the contract, paying for it at the rate 
of ... for sesame, ... for a metretes of sesame oil, for croton ... for cici 
. . . (altered to ' 17 dr.') . . . But if, when they give up the contract, they 
leave behind them more oil (than they were ordered to store?) they shall 
receive from the oeconomus as the value of the sesame oil 3 1 dr. 4! obols 
(altered to ' 28 dr. 3 obols') for a metretes, of cici 21 dr. 2 obols (altered 
to ' 20 dr.") for a metretes, of cnecus oil 18 dr. 4 obols (altered to ' 17 dr. 
i obol ') for a metretes, and as the value of the sesame 8 drachmae for 
an artaba, of the croton 4 dr., and of the cnecus i dr. 3 obols (altered to 
' I dr. 2 obols '). 

4. The lacunae are too great for any certainty, but I conjecture that 
this section refers to the produce and oil of which a store had to be kept 
by the predecessors of the contractors, and was bought by the incoming 
contractors within three days of their entering on the oanj, 7-11 being 
the prices which the contractors paid for it, 12-17 the prices they 
received on giving up the contract for any surplus above the amount 
which they had been ordered to store for their successors. The price 
which they received for what they were ordered to store is partly lost in 
the lacuna, partly given by 9-11. For the construction of 4-8 irapa- 
ATJ^OITCU . . . cnj<ra/ioy TOV <nj<rafiou TOV fj.f \~ . , cf. 1 8 21 oaov b av (\aiov 
vnoKi]pv<i>fj.(v . . . ATj^ofxcda . . . TOV fjitv eAcuou TOV pe \~ . . 

-napaKr}^fovro.i : cf. [9] I. 

5. aiTOTLdfa-Oai : cf. [56] 21, where TOV a-noTiQeptvov sc. eAaiou is, I think, 
certain. There is no place where the regulations about the oil stored 
can come except here, and this section cannot refer to the ordinary 
sesame and croton required from each nome, because (i) that has been 
discussed in [39] ; (2) it is impossible that it should have been received 
within three days of any fixed time, cf. [42] 3 ; (3) the contractors are 
to receive not only sesame and croton but sesame oil and cici, line 8. 
Nor can this section refer to oil required for Alexandria or the king, 
for that is mentioned in the following sections, while the sesame and 
croton to be grown for other nomes, [41] 20, would be obviously 
irrelevant here. 

9. Possibly rrjy (V (Ka<TT<ai vofjuoi KafltoTa/ifinjs TI/XTJS ; cf. [51] 19- 

ii. The reference is to [39]. As the 6iaypa/i/xa is fixed for, not /'//, 


the twenty-seventh year, probably the biaypa.wa.Ta were revised every 
year: cf. note on [38] i. 

Since the corrector says that the contractors are to receive for the 
produce the prices mentioned in [39], and his corrections in the next 
sections are all to the disadvantage of the contractors, probably the 
original draft ordained that the contractors should receive more. 

1 6. The corrected prices here are the same as the prices in [39]; 
therefore on the produce the contractors only recovered what they had 
themselves paid: cf. 10-11. I suspect that this is approximately the 
case with the oils also, and that* the corrected prices in 14-15 nearly 
represent the cost price of the oils, or a little more ; see note on 20. In 
any case it is practically certain that the contractors did not receive less 
for this oil than what the production of it had cost them. The profit on 
the inferior oils was much greater than on the superior, since there was 
no difference in the (corrected) retail price of any of the oils, [40] 9-16. 
Cf. [53] 22 for colocynth which is omitted here. 

[53.] 17-26. 'The oil which we hereinafter proclaim our intention of 
taking from each nome for disposal at Alexandria, we will take from the 
contractors in the nome, paying for it at the rate of 31 dr. 4* obols for 
a metretes of sesame oil containing 12 choes without jars, and 21 dr. 2 
obols for cici, 18 dr. 4 obols for cnecus oil, and 12 dr. for colocynth oil. 
(Altered to ' 18 dr. 2 obols for a metretes of cici.') This price shall be 
credited to the contractors in the instalments due from them, but the 
price of the produce, the wages of manufacture, and the miscellaneous 
expenses shall first be paid by the oeconomus.' 

1 8. v7roKTjpuo)/x; : i. e. in the list of nomes. The original list, as this 
passage shows, contained not only the amounts of sesame oil and cici 
required from each nome for Alexandria but the amounts of cnecus and 
colocynth oil ; see notes on [57] 6, [58] i, and [41] 20. The corrector, 
however, substituting only one oil, cici, for the four, intended 
to refer to [60]-[72], and in fact the produce eis ras ev 

is in those columns always croton, except in two instances, 
[60] 24 and [62] 5, of sesame. Hence his omission of the price of 
sesame oil, about which there is no doubt, is a mistake, to which how- 
ever little importance is to be attached. 

Who is meant by the first person in vnoK.i]pv<*nev and 
Cf. [53] 27 extopfv ; [54] i \jnpoK.i]pv^\o^v ; [57] 3 = [59] 2 TT( 


[58] 6 = [60] 13 TT(a\ovfj.ev, and frequent instances in [57]-[72] ; together 
with L. P. [1] i, where 7ro>Aoi'/xei> is probable; or, to put the question in 
another form, who is the author of the Revenue Laws ? Both the general 
probabilities of the case and these instances, which all imply that the 
person speaking lays down rules for the whole country, require as the 
answer the king. The only other person who could possibly be meant 
is the dioecetes at Alexandria, or the chief financial minister, whoever he 
was. Against the king being the author may be urged the fact that in 
many places o ^ao-iAcuy is spoken of in the third person, while the 
dioecetes at Alexandria is not mentioned. But this is no real objection, 
for in [36] 13 row /3ao-iA*u>s, not efxov, occurs in a Trpoypa^a undoubtedly 
issued by the king himself, and the difficulty of supposing that under an 
autocratic government the law of the country should be issued in any 
other name than that of the king is overwhelming. With regard to 
L. P. 62, the official title of which is uncertain, see note on [1] 6 of that 
papyrus. The general similarity between it and the Revenue Papyrus is 
so close that, even apart from my conjecture TrcoAov/xej; and the evident 
parallelism between L. P. [1] 1-3 and [57] 3-5, cf. notes ad loc., it is not 
easy to separate the rank of the author in the two documents. The 
ingenious argument by which Lumb. Rec. p. 342 tries to show that L. P. 
62 was written by a vnobioiKi^s cuts both ways, and is not in the least 
inconsistent with that papyrus, like the Revenue Papyrus, having been 
issued in the king's name. 

19. btadfvcis : see note on [48] 4. 

20. tv ro)i VOJXOH : the Crown paid the cost of the carriage to Alex- 
andria, and also supplied the jars, cf. [55] 4 ; on the other hand, the 
oeconomus paid for the produce, the wages of manufacture, and the 
miscellaneous expenses, presumably entering what he paid in the con- 
tractors' accounts against the sums credited to them. There is no 
question therefore that all these expenses were more than covered by 
the sums written by the first hand in 20-22, but the profit on the sale 
of a metretes was even greater than the difference between these prices 
and the selling price, cf. note on line 16 and the corrected price of cici 
here, 18 dr. 2 obols, which covered the expenses in lines 24-25. 

There is no mention here of the share of the surplus which, according 
to the corrected reading in [45] 3, was to be paid to the workmen and 
contractors on the oil that was manufactured. Cf. [45] 9 ro 



O.TTO TTJ? Trpaa-cias, which is left uncorrected, though ircoXou/xevou in [45] 3 
was altered. It is possible that oil eis ras fv AAear8paat 8ia0eo-ets was 
not included in the oil ' sold,' but in any case according to the correction 
the share ought to have been distributed from the profits of the oil 
manufactured for Alexandria. 

23. Cf. [34] 6, a similar regulation for wine required eis TO fiao-iXiKov. 
avatyopa : see note on [16] 10, [34] 8, and [56] 15. 

25. The oeconomus here pays for the produce, which was usually 
paid for by the contractors ([39] 13), and for the avr]\caij.a, which also 
under ordinary circumstances was paid for by them, cf. [54] 4. 
Was his payment of the /carepyoy also exceptional ? The answer to the 
question depends on the meaning of [46] 18, which owing to the lacuna 
is uncertain. [55] 15 however is an argument in favour of supposing 
that the narepyov was paid by the government, not the contractors, for it 
is coupled there with fjaa-dot. But the conditions of making oil at 
Alexandria may have been different from those in the country, and 
owing to the lacuna in [55] 3 it is not clear whether the wages were 
included in the SiaXoyioyxos. If the contractors had nothing to do with 
paying the Kartpyov, it must have been paid out of the profits, and 
therefore the sum paid by the contractors to the government did not 
represent the net profits of the government, since the government would 
have to subtract the narepyov. On the whole, however, it seems more 
probable that the contractors paid the eAaioupyoi as well as the yecopyoi 
than that the account of the /carepyoy was kept separate. The question 
does not affect the general position of the contractors to the government, 
cf. note on [39] 13, for if they did not pay the Karepyov, they would bid 
a correspondingly higher sum for the u>vr\. 

[53.] 27~[54] 14. 'The amount of sesame oil or cici which we 
require in Alexandria, we will proclaim at the time of the sale, and we 
will pay for it (?) at the rate of 48 dr. a metretes. (Bracketed by the 
corrector) . . . they shall not be allowed to introduce the oil into 
Alexandria on any pretext (added by the corrector " if they are dis- 
covered doing so they shall be deprived of the oil "). If they fail to 
render account of it, or if they introduce the oil into Alexandria without 
declaring all of it ("or are discovered introducing oil into the loads," 
bracketed by the corrector), they shall both be deprived of the oil and in 
addition each of those who have contracted for the village, shall pay 


a fine to the Treasury of 3 talents. (Altered by the corrector to ' they 
shall both be fined the value of the oil which they have introduced into 
Alexandria without declaring it . . .' The corrector in the next sentence 
omits ' to the Treasury,' and adds a new section over one which he has 
effaced, ' The fine shall belong to the Treasury and shall be put down to 
the oil-contractors in the country.') 

[53.] 27. This section is one of the most obscure in the whole 
papyrus. In the first place there is the question whether [53] 2;-[54] 2 
forms a complete section or whether it is connected with what follows. 
The fact that it is bracketed and no new regulation added perhaps 
shows that [54] 2-14 could stand alone, but as this section is clearly 
concerned with oil required in Alexandria, it was probably connected by 
the original scribe with [53] 27~[54] 3. On the other hand it is quite 
possible that the corrector intended by bracketing [53] 27-[54] 3 to 
connect [54] 3-14 with [53] 17-26. Next, what was this oil required in 
Alexandria? It cannot be oil for sale there, for that subject has been 
disposed of in the preceding section, 1 7-26, but if I am right in supposing 
that the king is the subject of ex w M ey ( see note on [53] 18), this oil was 
perhaps required for the consumption of the court ; cf. [34] 6, which 
however only mentions wine taken cts TO fia<ri\iKov and does not specify 
Alexandria. It is possible that the oil referred to here was to be 
exported, but as Egypt produced hardly enough oil for its own use, that 
is not likely. Another difficulty is the high price, 48 dr., apparently 
paid by the king for this oil. If he received oil eis ray tv AAe&u-fyjtiat 
bta0e<T(is at a reduced rate, we should expect him to pay still less for oil 
which he required himself. A possible explanation is that as the profit 
on the sale of each metretes ultimately came back to the government, 
the king recovered the difference between the cost price which he might 
have paid, and the price which he did pay, because the contractors who 
knew beforehand the amount which the king would take (see [54] 2), 
made for the contract a bid greater by the sum which they would 
receive for this oil taken by the king ; cf. note on [53] 25. 

3. The bracket after JZTJ is very irregularly formed and apparently 
turned the wrong way. 

4. If Tj/xioAii; is right, cf. the not infrequent omission of the o in 
apyvpiov at this period, e.g. Wilck. Ostr 329, see App. iii. p. 200. 

12. The farming of the taxes, which were sold collectively to a 

X 2 


company for a whole nome, was sub-divided by the tax-farmers among 
themselves, sometimes each contracting to collect the taxes of a par- 
ticular district, e. g. P. P. xlvi, where Philip is stated to have bought the 
right of collecting the cnro/xotpa TU>V Trept ( I>iAa8eA.<eiaz; K.O.I Bovfiavrov romof, 
sometimes, as the plural /ue/uuo-floo/uerot here shows, several of them com- 
bining to collect the revenues of a particular place. In this case the 
eXaiKTj OWTJ of the nome was sub-divided into the smaller uvcu of the 
villages, and those who had contracted to make oil at certain villages 
were apparently responsible for sending this oil required for Alexandria. 
Whether they had a particular interest in introducing oil into Alexandria 
without declaring it is not clear, and the corrections are very difficult. 
From the analogy of the other places in which K.aTay&pi&iv is used, we 
should expect the meaning of line 14 to be that the fine was put down 
to the credit of the oil contractors, though the emphatic manner in which 
it is stated that the fine was to belong to the Treasury makes the opposite 
meaning ' put down against ' quite possible. But as the insertion of fv 
TTJI x to P at implies a contrast with the contractors at Alexandria, i.e. 
although the fine was exacted at Alexandria, it affected only the 
contractors of the nome to which 01 jue/xto-^co/uei'ot Trjv KW/UITJI; belonged, 
and as the contractors in Alexandria had obviously done nothing to 
incur a penalty, there is more point in the contrast if KaTax(api((r6<i> has 
its usual meaning. Then the explanation of the fine being credited to 
the contractors of the nome from which the oil was brought to Alex- 
andria, must be that their interests had been somehow damaged by the 
action of 01 ^e/xto-tfoo/xeyot in not declaring all the oil. Perhaps 01 /xe/xt- 
<r0(tifjivoi. had sold some of it secretly without entering it in the accounts, 
see line 8 buxriv TOV \oyov. 

[54.] 15-19. 'The contractors shall appoint also clerks to act as 
their agents at Alexandria and Pelusium for the oil imported from Syria 
to Pelusium and Alexandria, and these clerks shall seal the repositories 
and follow up the disposal of the oil.' 

1 6. azmy/>a$eis : see note on [3] 2, and cf. L. P. 62 [8] 15. 

17. (K. Svpias: see note on [52] 18. As the oil mentioned in this 
section is to be consumed at the port to which it is brought (cf. [52] 26 
for oil brought to Pelusium on its way to Alexandria), and there was no 
duty at Alexandria on the oil mentioned here, [52] 26 note, probably 
there was no duty on it at Pelusium also. 


18. airoftoxio: cf. [31] 19, and see note on [50] 6. On the abrupt 
change of subject see note on [32] 10. 

[54.] 2o-[55] 16. 'The clerk of the oil-contract appointed by the 
oeconomus shall hold a balancing of accounts every month with the 
chief contractor in the presence of the antigrapheus, and he shall write 
down in his books both the amount of the different kinds of produce 
which he has received, with the amount of oil which he has manufactured 
and sold (' at the price written in the legal tariff' added by the corrector), 
except the oil which is set apart, and the price of the produce written in 
the legal tariff, together with the price of the jars and miscellaneous 
expenses, which shall be calculated at the rate of i dr. for an artaba of 
sesame, obols for croton, 2 obols for cnecus, ... for colocynth, ... for 
linseed, for . . metretae of sesame oil . . ., for 5 metretae of cici i dr. 
i obol, for 9 metretae of cnecus oil . . ., for 7 metretae of lamp oil i dr., 
for 12 metretae of colocynth oil i dr. i obol, and that share of the 
surplus of which the division between the workmen and the contractors 
has been ordered, and the expenses, whatever they may be, of transport 
of the produce. The contractors shall receive their pay from their share 
of the surplus.' (' But in Alexandria the wages for the manufacture of the 
sesame oil, the brokerage, and the pay of the contractors shall be given 
in accordance with the proclamation which shall be made at the time of 
the sale.' Added by the corrector.) 

[54.] 20. Cf. [46] 8, [47] 10, &c., where an antigrapheus appointed 
by both the oeconomus and antigrapheus acts in conjunction with the 
contractors. But this person is appointed only by the oeconomus and 
is called an antigrapheus rrjs airrjs, so that he is probably different. 
Cf. [3] 2 note. 

2i. 5taAoyifo-0o> : cf. [16]-[19] and [34] 9-21. There is nothing 
said in this 8iaAoyio>ios of the final balancing of accounts, but see note on 
[53] 25. 

23. (Kcurrov yovs : see note on [41] u. The re after Qopna is 
contrasted with the re after ri^v. [54] 23~[55] 2 a</>aiperov, are the 
amounts for which the contractors were responsible, [55] 2-12, the 
sums which they were allowed to deduct. The difference between the 
two was due to the Treasury. 

[55.] i. 6iaypa/xjA<m : i.e. [40]. If x^ns is right, cf. [61] i \u>pis TJJS 


?. TO atyaiperov perhaps refers to TO airoTiOffjifvov, [53] 5, or to 
the oil required in Alexandria, [53] 27. It cannot refer to the oil 
required eis T<W fv A\eavbpfi<u 5m0eoreis, for that was included in the 
avafyopai, [53] 23. 

2. Tt/uT/z': see [39]. Whether a reference to the Karcp-yov is lost in 
the lacuna in the next line is doubtful, [53] 25 note. 

4. Kfpajjiiov: cf. [53] 21. Apparently the contractors received an 
allowance in the account for pottery and the miscellaneous expenses. 

5. The proportion of two to one is that nearly always found between 
the prices of sesame and croton, cf. note on [39] 3, and it is probable 
that the allowance for the cunjAoj/xaTa of croton was 3 obols. 

6. The insertion of this line is very doubtful. If colocynth and 
linseed were mentioned the arrjAcojuaTa must have been excessively small, 
see [39] 3-7. 

8. The abbreviation which elsewhere means artaba, see note on [39] 
ij, is here found with the oils: if the artaba and metretes had the same 
capacity (Rev. R. E. ii. 159)* it is here perhaps equivalent to metretes. 
But which artaba was equivalent in capacity to which metretes ? The 
papyrus elsewhere uses the ordinary sign for /ueTprjT?]?, /ne, and there is 
no parallel in any papyrus for the sign meaning artaba as the equivalent 
of metretes. If however the abbreviation here really means artaba, it 
would seem to be a mistake. 

TO. o-vvTfTayfjLfvov : i.e. in [45] 1-6. The inyfvr]fj.a here is the differ- 
ence between the cost and the selling price of oil so far as the contractors 
were concerned. Cf. notes on [41] 1 1 and [45] 2. 

13. fj.L(r9oi : see [45] 2 note. 

15. KdTfpyov: see note on [45] 8. TO Tipo-n OOXTJTIKOJJ : in the case of 
Alexandria there were middlemen between the tax-farmers and retail 
traders. In the rest of the country the oil was sold by auction direct to 
the retailers, [48] 13 note. 

[55.] i7-[56] 13. 'Search. If the contractors or their subordinates 
wish to make a search, on the ground that some persons have concealed 
oil or oil-presses, they shall hold a search in the presence of the agent of 
the oeconomus and antigrapheus (altered to ' or the agent of the anti- 
grapheus '). If the agent of the oeconomus or antigrapheus when sum- 
moned fails to accompany the contractors, or to remain present until the 
search is made, he shall pay the contractors twice the amount of the oil 


supposed to be concealed, at their assessment of it, and the contractors 
shall be allowed to make the search within . . days ... If the contractor 
fails to find what he declared himself to be in search of, he may be 
compelled by the person whose property is searched to take an oath, 
and swear that his search was made for absolutely no other than its 
declared purpose, which strictly concerned the oil contract. If he fails 
to take the oath on the day on which he is required to take it or on the 
one following, he shall pay the person who requires him to take it twice 
the value of the oil supposed to be concealed, as it was estimated before 
the search took place.' 

[55.] !/ vTTTjperai : see note on [13] 2. 

20. Kapir^jiov : though the general sense of the passage is clear, we 
have been unable to make any satisfactory suggestion for this word. 
The second letter may be A, in which case uXo-ntfjiov is the only word 
possible, and that can hardly be used in a passive sense. In line 19 the 
a of f\]aiov may possibly be f, but it is more like a. Wilck. suggests 
\aiorpfjiov (yi and p are practically indistinguishable in this hand), i.e. 
a mistake for eAcuoupyijzov, and thinks it is contrasted with Kapiupov, but 
the correction of the singular to the plural seems to me in favour of 

22. OIKOV(OH)OV. As the corrector has corrected KCU in line 21 to /, 
this person is yet another antigrapheus ; see [3] 2 note. 

23. a-noTiveTaxrav ought to have been altered to the singular as only 
one person is meant, even if the original reading KOI in line 21 had not 
been a mere blunder. 

25. 5e ought probably to have been erased when JXTJ was altered to 
KOI, cf. note on [48] 9. 

[56.] 5- The letters above T; JXTJ are more like ovpav, which may be 
a mistake for <apav. 

8. TJ pr\v : cf. Wilck. Akt. xi. 2. The temples had an official whose 
duty it was to superintend the taking of oaths : see Rev. Chrest. Dhn. 
p. 45. The object of forcing the searcher to take this oath must, as 
M. suggests, have been to clear the character of the person whose house 
was searched. 

[56.] 14-18. ' The contractors shall appoint sureties for a sum greater 


by one-twentieth than that which they have contracted to pay, and shall 
pay up the taxes collected every day to the bank, while the monthly 
instalment shall be paid up before the middle of the month following.' 

14. Cf. [34] 2. 

15. Aoyeupia, AoyevrTjs, and Aoytveii; are the regular words for collecting 
a tax, cf. [10] i, [12] I3(?), [16] u, [52] 20, 27. Hence the Xoyfv^ara 
here have nothing to do with the ordinary payments for oil sold by the 
contractors, i. e. the avatfropa with which Aoyev/^ara are contrasted. More- 
over neither biopQuxrovTai nor naO r^^fpav is consistent with the supposition 
that ordinary payments are meant, cf. [48] 4-13. The only Aoyev- 
fjiara mentioned in C are the duties on foreign oil in [52], and these 
I think are meant here, but both biopOoxrovrai and Ka9 Tj/xepaz; as applied 
even to them are extremely difficult. The last part of the regulation is 
clear; an instalment (avafyopa) amounting to one-twelfth part of the 
year's revenue which the contractors had agreed to pay the government 
was expected from them every month, and if the actual instalment did 
not reach the required amount, the contractors had to make up the 
deficiency (biopOovo-daC), either themselves or through their sureties, before 
the middle of the next month. If naO -ij^cpav is opposed to irpo TTJS 
bi.xoij.rjv ms there is no alternative but to suppose that a certain proportion 
of the Aoyef/uara was expected every day and the contractors had to pay 
it, whether the Aoyeu/xara received each day reached the required amount 
or not, unless indeed we admit that Siop&oo-ozmu does not mean, when 
applied to Aoyeu/Aara, what it means when applied to ava(f>opav, which is 
very unlikely. But it is hardly conceivable that the contractors should 
be required every day to make up any deficiency in the Aoyev/xara, 
whether these are the duties on foreign oil or no ; and therefore I think 
that KO.O r]^fpav is to be closely connected with Aoyev/xara, ra being 
omitted by a very natural error, and is opposed to n\v eiufiaXkovvav ran 
jxrji>i. The meaning then is that the contractors or their sureties had to 
make up the deficiency first on the Aoyeuju.aTa received every day, and 
secondly on the monthly instalment, in both cases before the middle of 
the next month. This gives a satisfactory sense, but is open to the 
objection that if fv TOH (xopfvui Ttpo rrjs Sixo/ATjjncw applies to both 
halves of the section we should expect re ... K.O.I, not nev . . . 8e, and that 
as Kad -q^epav stands in the Greek, it is unquestionably opposed to fv ran 

i, not to TTJI; fTTi(3a\\ov<rav ran 


16. TTI rrjv Tpaircfav in any case applies to both halves of the section ; 
cf. [48] ii and note on [75] i. 

[56.] 19-21. 'The oil-workmen shall receive their due from the oil 
that is manufactured, not from the oil that is stored.' 

19. TO yivopcvov is the share of the surplus (see [45] 2, where this 
regulation ought to have been placed), for the ordinary narcpyov seems 
to have been paid in money, [46] 20. 

KaTfpya&ufvov is here passive. 

[57.] i-5 = [59.] 1-5. 'Revision of the law concerning the oil- 
contract. We offer for sale the oil-contract for the country from the 
month Gorpiaeus, which is in the Egyptian calendar Mesore, for a period 
of two years in accordance with the proclamation which has been issued.' 

i. On the relation of [57]-[72] to [39]-[56] see note on [38] i. 
8iop0o>/ia : cf. L. P. 62 [1] 7. CTTI 7771 eAaucqi : cf. [53] 4 TO irpoKrjpv^dfv 6$ 
fKdoroH vo/uau. The 'law' here is [39]-[56]. 

3. irtu\ovfjiv : see note on [53] 18, and cf. L. P. 62 [1] I. ri]v yvpav: 
Alexandria is therefore excluded, the conditions of the conj there being 
different, since oil required for the capital came partly from abroad, 
[54] 15, partly from the various nomes, [53] 19, partly from the a</>o>pi- 
o-ntvT! in Libya, [58] 5. Cf. [47] 18 and [55] 15. 

4. Though no formula of the extant double dates helps to fill up the 
lacuna, it is clear that no day was mentioned and therefore Gorpiaeus 
coincided with Mesore in this the twenty-seventh year. This is quite 
consistent with a double date in a papyrus at Leyden, B 379, of the 
twenty-ninth year of Philadelphus in which Peritius 28 = Tybi 2. If the 
two calendars had coincided during the two years' interval, Peritius a 
would have fallen on Tybi 2. Therefore, between Gorpiaeus of the 
twenty-seventh and Peritius of the twenty-ninth year, the Macedonian 
calendar had gained nearly a month on the Egyptian. Other instances 
of double dates in the third century B.C. are (i) P. P. 3, the twenty-fifth 
year, Apellaeus 10 = Pharmouthi 6 ; (2) the Canopus inscr. ninth year of 
Euergetes, 7 Apellaeus = 17 Tybi ; and (3) P. P. part I. 67 (i), Daisius 23 
= Thoth 2, the year not being mentioned. M. assigns P. P. 3 to the 
twenty-fifth year of Philadelphus, not Euergetes, but, as I think, wrongly. 
For if Apellaeus 10= Pharmouthi 6, Xandicus would approximately have 
corresponded to Mesore in the twenty-fifth year, and since Gorpiaeus 



corresponded to Mesore in the twenty-seventh year, we must conclude 
that the Macedonian calendar gained no less than five months or lost 
seven on the Egyptian between Apellaeus of the twenty-fifth year and 
Gorpiaeus of the twenty-seventh, which is scarcely credible. Leaving 
that papyrus aside for the moment, the Canopus inscription, in which 
the 7th Apellaeus corresponded to the i7th Tybi and therefore the 28th 
Peritius to about the 8th Pharmouthi, shows that between the twenty- 
ninth year of Philadelphus and the ninth of Euergetes, a period of 
seventeen years, the Macedonian calendar had lost a little over three 
months compared to the Egyptian, unless indeed it had gained nearly 
nine months, in which case the confusion between the regnal years of 
the king according to the two calendars must have been quite in- 
extricable. But if we suppose that P. P. 3 is the twenty-fifth year of 
Euergetes, the following result is obtained. In the ninth year of Euer- 
getes, Apellaeus 7 corresponded to Tybi 17, and therefore, if in the 
twenty-fifth year, Apellaeus 10 corresponded to Pharmouthi 6, the 
Macedonian calendar had in sixteen years either lost nearly three 
months compared to the Egyptian, or gained a little more than nine. 
This is approximately the same as the amount which it lost or gained in 
the seventeen years preceding the Canopus inscription. Therefore, since 
there is nothing in the correspondence of Diophanes, P. P. 2-4, which 
points to Philadelphus rather than Euergetes being the reigning king, 
(for the twenty-sixth year mentioned on page 2 may belong to Euergetes 
just as well as to Philadelphus), and since, in opposition to M., I think 
that there is no more reason to attribute undated or insufficiently dated 
papyri in the Petrie collection to Philadelphus' or the early part of 
Euergetes' reign than to the later part of Euergetes' reign, Philopator's, 
or in some cases even to Epiphanes', the balance of probability seems to 
me in favour of the twenty-fifth year in P. P. 3 referring to Euergetes. 
From the twenty-ninth year of Philadelphus to the twenty-fifth of 
Euergetes the Egyptian calendar was, as has been shown, gaining upon 
the Macedonian ; but between the twenty-fifth year of Euergetes and 
the ninth year of Epiphanes, a period of twenty-six years, a reaction 
took place ; for in the Rosetta Stone the 4th Xandicus = i8th Mecheir, 
and therefore the loth Apellaeus corresponded to about Phaophi 24, and 
Pharmouthi 6 to about Artemisius 22, i.e. the Macedonian calendar had 
either gained six months and a half on the Egyptian or lost five and 


a half. In the one case it had got back nearly to its original relation in 
the twenty-seventh year of Philadelphus, in the other it had lost a whole 
year, which is very unlikely. Such being the irregularity of the two 
calendars it is impossible to fix the year of P. P. part I. 67 within any 
approach to precision : but of the three double dates known for the third 
century B.C., it comes nearest to P. P. 3. On the superiority of the 
Egyptian calendar to the Greek cf. a passage in the astronomical 
treatise of Eudoxus, L. P. I. 62-80, pointed out to me by M., 810 ov 
(rrp.(f>uu'ov(Tiv rot? atrrpoAoyots at Tjjuepai otfie 01 EAArjviKoi /irj^es . . . 01 8 
aorpoAoyoi KOI ot icpoypa/a/iaret? . . . ra Kara^im/pta xat KVVOS avaro\ijv . . . 
ai'a\cyofj.(voi ray TjfA*pas K TCOV AiyvTman; avrai yap ovre vnffcaipovvrai ovre 

5. It is curious that the term of the contract began in the last month 
of the Egyptian year, Mesore, for OTTO cannot exclude the month 
mentioned. But both the commencement in Mesore and the fact that 
the contract was sold for two years are, as Wilck. remarks, probably 
due to exceptional causes, for elsewhere we find the <avai sold only 
for one year and that a regnal year ; e. g. Leyd. pap. F ; pap. Zois i ; 
Jos. A. J. 12. 4. 3 ; papyrus in Introd. to P. P. part ii. p. 29 line 3, and 
P. P. xlvi (b) 2. L. P. 62, where also by a strange coincidence Mesore, 
not Thoth, is the starting-point, has several difficulties of its own (see 
App. i), but the exceptional character of the starting-point is obvious. 

[57.] 6-23 = [59] 6-[60] 2. '(Where the number of arourae sown 
exceeds the number decreed), the tax on the additional sesame and 
croton shall belong to the contractors for the coming term. But 
wherever it appears from the following list that fewer arourae have 
been sown than the number previously decreed, we jvill make up the 
deficiency both in sesame and croton from other nomes ; and the tax 
on this sesame and croton which we shall supply, being 2 drachmae 
for sesame and i drachma for croton, shall belong to the contractors 
of the nome to which the produce is supplied. But in the nome from 
which we take away the sesame and croton in excess of the amount 
previously decreed, the tax on sesame and croton shall not be exacted 
upon the produce which we take away. But the colocynth and linseed 
oil, which we do not take to fill up the deficiencies of other nomes 
in sesame and sesame oil, we will manufacture through the agency 
of the oeconomi and then measure it, and the contractors shall receive 

Y 2 


a surplus from this oil equal to the surplus which they used to receive 
from sesame oil and sesame ; and the colocynth and linseed oil, which 
we do not take to fill up deficiencies of other nomes in cici, we will 
manufacture through the agency of the oeconomi and then measure 
it, and from it the contractors shall receive a surplus equal to that 
which they used to receive from cici and croton. The contractors 
shall superintend the manufacture by the oeconomus, and shall seal 
the oil.' 

[57.] 6. First as to the differences of reading between the two columns, 
(i) in [57] 6 [o-TjJfra/Mou is not enough to fill the lacuna, and I therefore 
conjecture re which is absent in [59] 7. (2) In [57] 12 the sign following 
reAos is quite different from that in [59] 13, but both can be resolved 
into a with a stroke after it, i. e. ap(ra^rj) : see note on [39] 1 1. Artaba 
is required by the sense, and it is confirmed by the blunder of the 
scribe in [59] 14, where r?js apra/3T/s is a mistake for rou oTjo-ajuou, showing 
that he had artaba in his mind when writing that passage. (3) In 
[59] 1 6 (gayafj-fv of [57] 15 has been changed for the worse into 
eto-aycojLter. (4) [57] 17 has TO eTrtyeurj/^a, [59] 19 inserts KCU before ro. 

(5) [57] 1 8 has KCU airo TOV crrjcrajuou, while [59] 21 omits cnro or rov. 

(6) In [57] 1 8 there is no room for TO before KO\OKVVTIVOV which is found 
in [59] 21. The difference is of little importance whether the passage 
be right or not, see note on [57] 16. (7) In [59] 21 we have 
K[. . K]arepyao-jotei'ot, probably KCU, or else KCI was written twice over by 
mistake. Karepyaaa^voi without KCU [57] 19 is correct. (8) In [59] 23 
a(f) is omitted, cf. [57] 20. Minor differences are [57] 8 TCOJU, = [59] 9 TCOJ; : 
[57] 10 eAAenro^ra = [59] II (v\movTa : [57] 17 A^r/roi/jrai = [59] 
Arj^orrai, cf. [57] 2i = [59] 24, and [58] 5 = [60] IT, for the same 
difference of spelling: [57] 18 KO\OKVVTIVOV = [59] 21 xoXoKvvdwov. The 
changes of reading introduced by the writer of [59] are thus for the 
most part mere variations, in no case improvements, except perhaps (6), 
and it maybe argued that [59]-[fO] were directly copied from [57]-[58] 
by a rather careless scribe. But the number of differences in [59]-[60] 
especially those which are mere variations, neither better nor worse 
than [57]-[58], makes me incline to the belief that they are independent 
copies of a common archetype which the scribes may have had before 
them, or which may have been dictated to them simultaneously. 

The meaning of this difficult column depends on the sense of 


[57] 8 and irpoKijpv^Oevro^ [57] 13. The reference is, 
I contend, not to the following list of nomes, [60]-[72], but to a previous 
list, with which [60]-[72], referred to by airoSeifayiei;, are contrasted. 
Since the original draft of the law concerning the oil monopoly con- 
tained a direct reference to a list of nomes, different from the list 
which we have, [53] 18 note, and [60]-[72] were not part of the original 
document, [38] i note, the list referred to by irpoKripv\0fiar<i)v is prob- 
ably that referred to by viroKtipvfanev in [53], Assuming the correctness 
of this identification, in what way did the original list, which no doubt 
contained the law for the twenty-sixth and possibly earlier years, differ 
from the list in [60]-[72] which represented the law for the twenty- 
seventh year? In the first place the number of arourae to be sown 
with sesame and croton in the nomes was different in the two lists, 
for the section beginning ocras 8 av apovpas fXaa-o-ovs, [57] 7, is clearly 
opposed to the preceding one which in that case may have begun 
o<ras b av TrAeiovs, and the two lines which are left confirm this view. 
The revised list therefore assigned in some cases more, in others fewer 
arourae to the nomes, and where the revised amount was smaller the 
deficiency was made up from other nomes, a contingency which, as 
has been shown, see note on [41] 20, was not contemplated in the 
original draft of [39]-[56], for under the old regulations each nome 
grew enough for its own consumption. The difference however between 
the two lists is not limited to sesame and croton. The original list 
contained also the amounts of cnecus oil, colocynth oil, and perhaps 
lamp oil required for Alexandria, [53] 22. In the revised list, in 
accordance with the correction of [53] 20, only croton is required for 
Alexandria, except in the two cases where sesame is required, [60] 24 
and [62] 5, and there is no mention of the other oils, though see [58] i 

6. rtXos: cf. [39] 13-15. By ficriovra xpovov the two years mentioned 
in line 4 are meant. It is possible that the alterations in the law were 
made between the time of the sale and the collection of the tax, cf. 
TtponTipvyQtHTtov in line 9 with [55] 16 and probably [54] i, and that 
although the contractors for the different nomes had bought the tax 
under the old regulations, in which the numbers of arourae to be sown 
were different, the government nevertheless allowed them to gain where 
the change in the law was in their favour, just as it secured them against 


loss when the change injured them, see 8-10. But the phrase rots rov 
fimovra \povov Trpia^evoLs rather implies that the contract had not yet 
been bought, and so I think does moAovjuev in [57] 3 and [58] 6. Hence 
it is more probable that the alterations were made prior to the sale 
of the contract and represent the terms under which it was to be 

It is impossible of course to fix in which nomes the amounts of 
sesame and croton to be grown for the nome itself were increased. 
Many nomes in [60]-[72] have to grow croton (and two have to grow 
sesame) for Alexandria, but as no tax was paid on this in the nome 
where the produce was grown, see 13-15, this increase did not affect 
the contractors who had bought the tax. The nomes meant in 6-7 
are those in which the number of arourae was increased without the 
surplus thus produced being taken away, and this section decides what 
was to be done with the increase of the tax on sesame and croton. 
What was to be done with the oil produced from this increased 
amount of sesame and croton is perhaps laid down in 15-23, but see 
note on line 1 6. 

8. eAao-o-ous: e.g. the Heliopolite nome, [64] 1-18, which only grew 
500 arourae of sesame and therefore had to be supplemented by 2000 
artabae from other nomes, while it grew no croton at all : cf. [63] 1 7, 
[64] 22, &c. 

u. i>7rapei : cf. [61] u, [62] i, &c. There are however two apparent 
exceptions to this rule [69] 5-7 and [72] 15-18. 

13. e ou: e.g. the Tanite nome [66] 18, the Mendesian [62] 19, &c. 

16. The construction and meaning of this section have given us 
more trouble than any passage in the papyrus, nor have we been 
successful in finding a satisfactory solution. The general outline of 
lines 16-22 is certain in so far that they consist of two parallel sections, 
neither of which is written out in full, but the great difficulty is to 
decide how far the parallelism is to be carried. Assuming there are 
no mistakes in [57] 16-22 and putting aside for the moment the 
variations in [59] 18-25, the construction seems to be oaov 8 av 1^ 
ftcojuez' eis TO eAAeiuw o-r/aa^oy KCU eAcuov (K.O\OKVVTIVOV eAaioi> KCU TO auo 
TOV \ivov (TTTC pharos, KaTcpya(rap.voi 5ia T<av oiKovop.u>v /jierpqo-o/uev), a< ou 
TO eTTtyffTj^a TO KTOV Kt]^rovrai ocrov ctTro TOU arjcraiuvov eAatou KCU airo TOU 
(f\ap.(3avov o<rov 5 av JUTJ Sca/ie^) eis TO (eAAenroi;) KIKI 


(\aiov KCLL TO OTTO TOV \ivov <T7T(/>/iaro9, Karepyao-a/itroi 5ta rcov 
HCTpri<Ton(v, a<p ov TO cniydrr^jM TO i<rov Arj^ojmu o<rov OTTO Tf TOV KIKIOS 
KCU OTTO TOD K/)orcoroy (\anftavov. 

The variations in [59] 18-25 do no * affect the sense, the only one 
of any importance being the insertion of TO before KO\OKVVTIVOV. But 
if, as I think, KO\OKVVTIVOV eXaiov is the object of both ooififv and 
fitT/>rfo-o/xei>, it makes no difference to the meaning that in 57 KO\OKVVTIVOV 
cAcuov KO.I TO OTTO TOV \tvov (TTKpfjLaTos is grammatically the object of 
b<an(v and the whole clause oo-ov o-Trep^iaTos is the object of /iT0T/<ro/xi>, 
while in [59] TO KO\OKVVTIVOV o-n-ep/wtros is the object of ^Tpr]<ro^(v and 
is qualified by oa-ov py 8o>/i>. The meaning then will be 'that colocynth 
oil and linseed oil, when not required to fill up deficiencies in sesame 
oil and cici in the other nomes (cf. line 10 eAAfiiroimi), are to be manu- 
factured by the oeconomi, and the tax-farmers are to receive an 
7riyerrj/xa equal to that which they received from sesame oil and sesame 
or cici and croton. It might be thought that this explains the absence 
of colocynth and linseed in [44]-[47] which are concerned with the 
manufacture of oil. But there is no reference in C either to the 
substitution of colocynth and linseed oil for sesame oil and cici or 
to the adulteration of sesame oil and cici with colocynth and linseed 
oil, which M. suggested was the meaning of this passage. The oils 
are invariably kept distinct, cf. [40] 10, [53] 14, 21, moreover in line 
10 it has been already stated that the deficiency in sesame and croton 
would be made up by sesame and croton from other nomes. There 
is also the objection, why should the fniycvrma on the colocynth oil 
not given eis TO eAAeiTrov o-qo-a/Aov be different from the cTriyerrj/uia on 
the colocynth oil not given eis TO (eAAeiiroy) KIKI? This firtyerrjjia is 
itself one of the most obscure points in the whole section. The only 
-7riyTj^a mentioned in C is the difference between the cost and selling 
price of oil, a part of which was paid to the contractors, cf. [45] 2 and 
[55] 14. This suits enro TOU <nj<r<tyui>ou eXaioi;, but is no explanation 
of the eiriyerrj/ia airo TOV cn/o-a/xou in [57] 18, for which phrase C offers 
no parallel. Other alternatives are either to take ciriyevrina. as the 
surplus on the whole account of the tax-farmers, which neither suits 
TO laov.nor yields a satisfactory meaning, or to consider it equivalent 
to -n\(iov in [53] 13, in which case the eTriyenjfia on the sesame oil 
as well as the eniytinwa on the sesame must refer to the prices in 


that passage. But it is very difficult to see how the prices there 
could be called an e^riyem/pio since they are much less than the selling 
price, [53] 16 note. 

If the explanation suggested is very unsatisfactory, it is less so than 
several other explanations which may seem possible, (i) If o<rov in 
[57] 15 refers not to colocynth and linseed oil but to sesame oil, the 
construction becomes still more complicated and the old difficulty of 
colocynth oil and linseed being used to supplement cici still remains. 

(2) If oo-ov eK TOV \ivov (TTTepfcaro? be taken as one sentence, i. e. what 
we do not give eis TO (XXenrov at](rafj.ov but what we do give ets TO 
KIKI, a(f> ov a-n-o TOU (TTjo-a/xou in 16-18 is left unaccounted for. 

(3) We may suppose that /cat has been omitted between KIKI 
and TO KoXoKwrivov, in which case [59] 21 is nearer to the correct 
reading than [57] 18, and the section will refer to the sesame 
and croton which is in excess of the previously decreed amount, 
but is not required for other nomes. Then in line 18 we ought to 
supply oo~oj; 8 av fxrj Scojuiei' KIKI rj TO KO\OKVVTIVOV TJ TO cnro TOU \LVOV 
o-ncpnaTos LS TO KIKI K.T.A. But the amount of colocynth and linseed 
to be grown was not fixed, cf. [39] 14, note, and therefore it could 
not be in excess TO>V TTpoKrjpvxQei<r(>v, and why is nothing said of the 
fTnyvr]fji,a on colocynth and linseed or the oils produced from them? 

(4) If in line 18 we only supply KIKI, we avoid the last difficulties, 
but why should the deficiency in colocynth and linseed oil be supplied 
by cici and not by colocynth and linseed oil ? 

The omission of cnecus oil here, cf. [58] 2 note, is in any case re- 
markable. If the explanation of the passage which I have suggested 
is near the truth, and we have here a regulation concerning the manu- 
facture of colocynth and linseed oil, the reason may be that the 
regulations for the manufacture of cnecus have already been given and 
that a deficiency in its supply was not likely to occur. But it is more 
likely the omission is a mere accident, cf. notes on [41] 1 1, [42] 4. 

19. TO otTro TOU \ivov a"iT(pp.aTos : cf note on [39] 7. In [39]-[56] 
it is called TO e -n e \\VXVIQV. 

[58.] i-4= [60] 3-9- 

i. Two facts are clear concerning the sesame and croton mentioned 
in this paragraph, (i) that they are taken away (e) from each nome, 
and (2) that no tax is to be levied on them by ot Ttpia^voi rrjv 


e . . . . ; cither of these facts is sufficient to prove that the sesame 
and croton mentioned here cannot be the ordinary sesame and croton 
required for the nome itself, while a<rrov, if correct, shows that the 
sesame and croton cannot be that required ety oAAovy vopovs, even if 
that subject had not been already discussed in [57] 7-15. The only 
other classes of sesame and croton are that y ray tv AAcfarfyetai 
8ia0e<riy [53] 18 and that required w A\cavbpctai [53] 27. Against 
the latter class being meant here are the bracketing of the section 
[53] 27~[54] 2 and the absence of any mention of this class in the 
list of nomes. On the other hand croton *iy Tay ev AA<arfymai 5ia0e<my, 
on which no tax was to be levied in the nome, is frequently mentioned 
in [60]-[72], and in two cases, [60] 24 and [62] 5, sesame <iy ray et> 
AAeai>8peiai 8ia0my. Since we should expect a general regulation 
in these two columns concerning the tax on this class of sesame and 
croton parallel to that concerning the tax on sesame and croton eiy 
oAAovy rofiovy, and eiy AXcgavbpdav is possible in [58] 2, it is extremely 
probable that this section refers to the oil 'for disposal at Alexandria.' 
The only difficulty is the mention of colocynth oil in [58] 2, cf. [53] 22 
where colocynth oil is bracketed by the corrector. But as sesame oil 
is also bracketed by the corrector, the inconsistency need not trouble us. 
In [60] 8 <rq<r^apn> is impossible, as is I/JOJAOV, though the a and v 
are extremely doubtful. We should expect ' the nome from which we 
take away the sesame and croton,' cf. [57] 14 and [61] 17. 

[58.] 4-6 = [60] 9-13. 'The sesame and croton sown in the district 
which is set apart shall be received by the oeconomus from the culti- 
vators, and he shall forward it to the oil factory in Alexandria.' 

5. T; a</>a>/H(rjier77 was part of the Libyan nome, [61] 3 (cf. [40] 14), 
the produce of which was reserved for Alexandria. Hence as in the 
case of sesame and croton grown eiy aAAous ixyiovy, [43] 22-24, the 
oeconomus, not the contractors, received the produce, and no tax was 
paid on it to the contractors of the Libyan nome, [61] 4-6, and note 
[on 61] i. In [60] 10 the a of Kporuva is elided. 

[58.] 6-8 = [60] 13-15. 'We offer the contract for sale accepting 
payment in copper coin, and we will take 24 obols for the stater.' 

6. TT(D\oviJ.fv reverts to iro>Aov/iei> in [57] 3 and refers to the whole 
contract for the x<*>pa, not to the a</>a>/no>ien/ only. 



7. On this all important passage see App. iii. p. 195. To anticipate 
my conclusions, this passage means that the government would not only 
accept copper coin from the contractors as payment of the sum which 
they had promised, but would take it at par, demanding no exchange 
and counting 24 copper obols as the full equivalent of a silver stater 
or tetrad rachm ; i. e. copper was legal tender not merely for the fractions 
of a drachma, as it always was, but for the whole amount. In the 
case of most other taxes, e.g. the aTrojuoipa, the government insisted 
on payment in silver, and if the tax-farmer was allowed to pay in copper 
at all he had also to pay the difference of the exchange which seems 
to have been fixed in all cases by the government. Cf. [76] 2-5. 

[58.] 8-9 = [60] 15-17. ' If the flow of the oil produces a surplus, 
this surplus of oil and cici shall belong to the Treasury.' 

8. pwis: see note on [47] i, to which, as L. remarked, this passage 
probably refers. It seems that the reading differs in [58] 9 from [60] 16, 
the first having TO irXeioz;, the other TO eAcuoy KCU KIKI, but there may 
be an error in my restoration of 8-9 and in any case the sense is the 
same in both passages. 

[60.] 18-25. ' 1 the Saite nome with Naucratis, of sesame 10,000 
arourae, of croton 1 1,433$ arourae, and likewise for disposal at Alex- 
andria, of croton, on which no tax shall be levied by the contractor 
of the Saite nome, io,666 arourae, and of sesame for disposal at 
Alexandria 3000 artabae.' 

1 8. The mention of Naucratis here though its importance was 
rapidly decreasing, coupled with the absence of it from the list in [31], 
is somewhat in favour of the view suggested in note on [31] 5, that 
the list in [CO]-[72] is much the older classification. Ptolemais TTJS 
0r//3at8os is not mentioned in either list. 

20 /3'. The sign for is common in P. P. Cf. also B. M. pap. cxix. 
42, of the second century A.D., by which time the ft had degenerated into 
o. This passage and line 23 settle the question whether the aroura 
was ever divided into thirds at this period, but Wilck. tells me that 
he adheres to the opinion he has expressed that in the case of 
fractions smaller than , the other series, f , |, T V and so on, is always 
used for arourae. 

21. wore: cf. App. ii. (4) saep. ; P. P. 49 (i c) 4, Ti\iv6ov\Koi 01 


(\Kva-ai. [iThivOov] M O>OTC is TTJI; (rvvrtKavnivqv (V 

/3an-i[AiKT;i/] KaTaAv<m> ; and Wilck. Akt. vi. 15 ra ciOto-fura <rv/x/3oAa 
fTrioraAjji'at axrrc rot? jxcraKcifxcpoi?. In all these cases it is followed 
by the dative or s. 

24. <T7j<rajiov : see note on [53] 20 and cf. [C2] 5. 

25. After the lacuna is what looks like the tip of a <r, but as Stafleo-iv 
is elsewhere followed immediately by the amount I do not think 
anything is lost. 8ia0e<ru> : cf. note on [48] 5. The amounts of sesame 
and croton required for Alexandria are given here and in [61] 19 in 
artabae, in other places, where there is not a lacuna, they are given 
in arourae. The fact that arourae and artabae are used indifferently 
shows that there was a fixed amount of seed expected from each 
aroura. The enormous quantity of croton to be grown in the Saite 
nome includes of course the croton already planted. Probably only 
a very small amount was sown in each year, cf. note on [43] 5, while 
the figures in the case of sesame meant the quantity to be actually 
sown. There is no proportion between the relative amount of sesame 
and croton to be grown in the various nomes, nor is there any between 
the amounts to be grown for the nome itself and those to be grown 
for Alexandria or other nomes. The figures exhibit the utmost variety 
throughout the list 

[61.] 1-12. 'In all Libya, except the district set apart, of sesame 
5700 arourae, and in the district set apart, of sesame which must be 
supplied to Alexandria for disposal there, and on which no tax shall 
be levied by the contractor of the Libyan nome, . . arourae. Of croton 
which must be made into oil in the nome we will provide from other 
nomes . . artabae, the tax on which shall belong to the contractor 
of the Libyan nome.' 

i. See [58] 5, note. It does not seem that any croton was grown 
in the a^pur^v^, for there is hardly room for another line. 

8. coirji : i. e. the nome of which the tax was farmed. Cf. note 
on [29] 7. 

As the same formulae are repeated in each column, it is unnecessary 
to translate the rest of the list. 

[61.] 20. See note on [31] 6 and Introd. p. xlviii. 

[62.] 5. Though the lines are often very uneven, there is not room 

Z 2 


for Ttjv fv TOU a\\ois VO/JLOIS biaOeviv, even if that had been the usual 
order, and not n\v biadeviv rr\v ev rots oXXots ro/xois. 

[63.] 9. Perhaps TTJI> fv A\(avbpeiai, but from the Mendesian nome 
to the Fayoum, [71], the formula, where preserved, is cts rows a\\ovs 

[67.] 12. ?r/>aera(i). Other mistakes in spelling occur in [68] i, 19, 
[72] 1 8. 

[69.] 1-2. Cf. [61] 3 and [72] 11-12. The Memphite nome as 
well as Memphis was supplied from the Fayoum. 

5. Cf. [72] 15-17, and [71] 8-n. From these two passages it 
appears that the produce of the Fayoum sent to the Memphite nome 
and Memphis was exempt altogether from the tax and is therefore 
an exception to the rule decreed in [57] 13-15, unless, as is quite 
possible, the scribe has written tv Me/x^ei and tv TCOI Mej^mjt for fv 
Trjt XifMvrn or tv TCOI At/uzurqi. For the position of the Memphite nome 
in the list see M. Introd. p. xlviii. But I am inclined to think that the 
separation of the Memphite nome from Memphis is due to want of 
precision in the drafting of the law rather than to any sacredness 
attaching to the number twenty-four, and that the agreement between 
the two lists in point of number is accidental. Cf. note on [31] 5. 

18. The figure after 'B is 900 : so [71] 12. 

[71.] 10. At/xrtrrjy : cf. App. ii. (2) 13, which proves the existence 
of the word and probably refers to the Fayoum. The note added 
at the side in a very minute hand appears to refer to some amount 
which had been omitted, and does not affect the construction of the 
principal sentence. But it is possible that we ought to read eis TOV 
Meju^irrji; /ecu Me/xc/uz; in lines 8-9 and [Me/nc/H]^ in line u, cf. [69] 2 
and [72] 12. 

[72.] i. There is hardly any doubt that the nome lost is the Cyno- 
polite which is wanting to complete the list in [31]. 

8. The fragment containing part of lines 8-10 is perhaps incorrectly 
placed here, though no other place suits it. In any case there is a varia- 
tion in it from the usual formula. I conjecture that the scribe wrote KCU 
TOV KpoTMva ov bfi KaTfpyaa-Orjvai., which elsewhere is used only of the 
croton supplied from other nomes, in place of KPOT<OVOS, i. e. the croton to 
be grown in the Cynopolite nome. Where arourae are mentioned, they 


naturally refer to the sesame and croton grown in the nome, and where 
sesame and croton are supplied from other nomes, the amount is given 
in art abac. 

1 1 . See note on [69] 5. 

1 8. Considering the size of the Thebaid compared to other nomes, 
the amounts are not large, being less than those assigned to the Saite 
nome [60] 19-20. The Thebaid was bounded by the Hermopolite nome 
on the north and by the first cataract on the south. 

[73.] The roll bought from a dealer in Cairo by Prof. Petrie in Dec. 
1893 ends with [72] ; the pieces which constitute D and E were bought 
by me in 1895 from the same dealer, with the exception of [100] and 
part of [103] on the verso of [100]. This piece and the fragments 
printed after [107] I obtained in the Fayoum in December, 1894. For 
any one who has studied [l]-[72] a mere glance at D and E and the 
fragments is sufficient to convince him that they all belong to the 
same series of documents as [l]-[72], and it is hardly necessary to call 
attention to the close similarity in colour and texture of the papyrus, 
the obvious parallelism of the subjects treated, and the identity of the 
writer of [87]-[91] with the writer of [24]-[35]. The roll containing 
[l]-[72] probably consisted originally of four separate documents, cf. 
note on [38] i, so that the question whether [73]-[107] were ever 
actually joined to [l]-[72] is of little importance. Since [1] is the 
beginning of a section, it is probable that D and E were not actually 
joined, but as the distance between the folds in [73]-[107], so far as it 
can be ascertained, shows that these columns formed the outside of a roll, 
the core of which had been separated from it, and the distance between 
the outside folds of [l]-[72] is perfectly consistent with the view that 
[l]-[72] are the missing core of [73]-[107], it is probable that [73]-[107] 
were folded round [l]-[72] but not joined to them, and hence were 
separated from [l]-[72] by the finders of the papyrus. Whether this 
hypothesis be correct or not, [73]-[107] must have been found at the 
same place as [l]-[72], and as it is quite certain that [73]-[107] were 
found in the Fayoum, it follows that [l]-[72] were found there also ; 
cf. note on [38] 3. 

[73]-[78] form a section by themselves, and some folds may have 
been lost between [78] and [79], but probably not many. 


[73.] i. 8iaypaju/xa : see note on [39] i. At first sight the word 
appears to be used here in a wider sense than there, for D appears to fix 
the relations of the royal banks towards the government officials, cf. note 
on [3] 2. But such a section as [76] is a biaypa^a in the sense of [39], 
and as other sections of a similar character may have been lost, e. g. one 
fixing the rate of interest (cf. [78] i), the meaning of Siay/oa/x/za may be 
the usual one. In line 4 ]t/3i/oji> is perhaps for /3ao-]t\uTjy. M. 

[74.] 2. ot Kara/3aXA.oi/Ts are the tax-payers, not the tax-farmers, 
cf. [52] 15, 1 8. 

[75.] i. The acute conjecture of Wilcken from P. P. xxvi (G. G. A. 
1895, no. 2, p. 156), that there were royal banks in the villages as well as 
in the large towns, is thus completely established. No one however had 
suspected the surprising piece of information afforded by line 4 and 
[76] 3, that the royal banks were farmed, and this fact produces im- 
portant modifications in the current view concerning the position of the 
banks in this and the next century ; cf. Wilcken's Ostraca. 

2. The subject of ava(f)fpeT(ao-av is probably not cu rpa7reai. The 
exact breadth of all of the columns in D is uncertain. The number of 
letters lost at the beginnings and ends of lines here is calculated on the 
supposition that 3-4 airoTLvcTaxrav ran TT/]V is correct, in [76] on the 
supposition that o-iwa^rjrai trpos TOV TjyopaKora (cf. [47] 5 and 13) is right, 
in [74] on the supposition that Tr/xxcnroyres u (cf. [15] 4) is right. The 
length of [73], [77] and [78] depends on the correctness of the previous 
conjectures combined. 

5. M. suggests avTi\ r<av /cara/3aA A.o/xercoi> \pi]^aTui\v. 

[76.] 4- No lacuna is more deplorable than that at the beginning of 
line 5, which would have given us the discount on copper when paid in 
place of silver by the farmers of a vpos apyvpiov OWTJ. Cf. App. ii (5) and 
L. P. 62 [5] 1 6, which gives the discount at some period of the second 
century B.C., and App. iii. pp. 198-200 and 214-216. 

7. If TOOI TJ]V rpaiiefav rjyopciKori, the lacuna is longer than I have 

[77.] i. iravra xaA.Koi> bibovai : e.g. the farmers of the c\aiKrj cor?/, who 
paid in copper without any discount, cf. [58] 6 and App. iii. p. 195. 

[78.] i. Probably em T[OKOH] ; so in line 4. 


[80.] I. av[Tiypa<j>ov ? 

2. Probably AEKAT[H2 or AEKAT[J2N. 
[84.] 10. Perhaps ZH]TH212, cf. [55] 17. 

[85.] 6. vavTeia : cf. Rosetta stone 1 7, Trpoa-cTafcv 6> KCU TTJV <rv\\rj\l/iv 
riav (is TJ]V vavrciav /ITJ irotci<r0at. 

[86.] 6. bioiKTjTov : see note on [38] 3. 

10. o/xrva) : this would seem to be the beginning of a /3a<nAiKos op*oy, 
cf. [27] 6 and App. ii (2). But its occurrence here is very strange. 

[87.] From this point to [107] the subject is a tax connected with 
clothes; cf. Rosetta stone 17, roov T eis TO fiaaiXiKov avvT(\ov[ji(i'<Dv tv TOIS 
tcpot? (3v<r<riv(i>v odovuav aireXvo-fv ra bvo /nepr/ with the mention of fivvo-uxav 
in [103] i and o0ona in [98] 9 and [99] 5; and Rosetta stone 29, 
8e /cat ras n^ias TCOI; /ITJ (rvvTffo&ntvuiv eis TO (3a<ri\LKOv (3v<r<nv<av 
KCLI T(ov (TvyT(r<Ae(r/xera)t; ra irpo? Toy Sety/xaTKr/ioy 5ia<^)opa (air- 
with the TrapaSety/xa in [89] 3 and [102] 4. Airos, toros and 
are frequently mentioned, and there are two references to the 
priests, [106] 3 and [107] 4. 

9. There does not seem to be room for a7roTi]i;eTa>. Perhaps the 
right-hand strip belongs to a different column. 

[90.] There is a break between this and the preceding column. 
[04.] 3. Tpujpapxw* : cf. P. P. 129. 8. 
[95.] 6. i. e. 2 drachmae, i \ obols. 

[96.] i. Probably xpai> fx^ cv > c ^ [ 5 3] 27 and note on [53] 18. 

3. TpTjpav : r/pa seems to be the termination of a word expressing the 
tax on some article, cf. Cin-qpa the tax on C^ 1 " ^ and fin TTJI o0o[viTjpcu ? 
[103] 3. 

4- Cf. note on [12] i. 

[98.] i. : the curved line above and ITJ in lines 2 and 3 represents 
IT, i. e. TTTJX VS : c f- B. M. pap. 1. 7. 

av(a) means ' at ' or ' multiplied by,' cf. App. ii (5) passim. 

[103.] 2. a-TVTTTTfiv coy : cf. LXX. Lev. 13. 47, where B has <mrmrviv<jtv. 

3. Cf. [96] 3 note. 

[104.] 4- Cf. [7] 3. 

[107.] i. Cf. [9] 2 note. 

[Frag. 1.] I do not feel very confident that all the columns which 


I have assigned to the tenth scribe are by him, [73]-[86], [99]-[107], 
except [99] 8-9, and the fragments. It is easy to select two columns 
which, when put side by side, appear to be written by different persons, 
e. g. [76] and [82], but there are several columns in which the writer's 
hand changes gradually from one style to another, and after trying in 
vain to distinguish more than one hand I have come to the conclusion 
that these columns were all written by him. His change from a rather 
formal to a much more cursive hand is clearly exhibited in [73]-[78]. 

That Fragments i and a do not belong to the parts of [73]-[102] 
written by the tenth hand is quite certain ; Frag. 3 is more doubtful. 
Fragments 4, 5, and 6 might belong to [73]-[102], but so far as can be 
ascertained they belong to i and 2, for all of them seem to be concerned 
with the fwofuov or pasture-tax. The fragments grouped together under 
one number come at corresponding folds and therefore at corresponding 
intervals, most probably of about 8 inches, so that each one belongs to 
a different column. But the order in which they are placed under each 
number is in some cases doubtful. Frag, i (a) and (b) go together, and 
are in the right order, and so are (c}-(g), but whether (a}-(b] come before 
or after (c}-(g) and whether there are any corresponding fragments lost 
between (a)-(b] and (c}-(g) is unknown. Similarly in Frag, a, (a) and 
(b) go together, and so do (c}-(f) and (g)-(i], but the position of these 
three subdivisions to each other is unknown. In Frag. 4, (a)-(e), (g)-(l], 
(m)-(n) go together, (/) is by itself. In Frag. 5, (a) and (b) are by 
themselves, (c] and (d) go together. In Frag. 6, (a)-(c) go together, so 
do ()-(/), and (g)-(h). 



[ Col. 1. [iHaXovfJiCV ray tv rjau Ovpvyxirr/i coray eiy TO aL 
[ ........ airo /zTji/]oy Meo-opr; iy 8a>8eKajUTjvoi; 

[KOI ray irayojji>ay] Tjjitpay e a[y]opaere 8e 

[ray coray ..... KCU] jxcAAere ftT)[0]era <rvKO<f)avTr]<Tfiv 

5 [ .......... P?^ ] 8[ia]/3aXAeiy aAX OTTO row 

[ .............. ]i xara rovy vofwvs KOI ra 8ta 

[ypa/xfxara Kai ra irpjooray/xara cai TO biopO(t>fj.f0a 
[TO ............. JT/ao^fva </> CKacrrTjy 

[ray 8 covay avaJTrATjpaxreij; ovOcva vnoXoyqv 
10 [ ............. TO] f3a<ri\i.KOv 7rapeu/3 

[ .............. ]ci(T0ai coy icai ray <y8eiay itpa\di) 

[(Tovrai ....... 01] ra reArj Aa^aro^rey oo-a xai 

[. ........... eyyjuovy 8e Kara<rT7j(70u<riy 01 eyAa 

reoi oiKojro/ucoi Kat ^a<ri[AiKo)i] 


Col. 2. irapo^oAoyrj^Tjt [eiri rrjy] irpaaewy y r/fxepaiy A Kara 

[row 7ri]/3aAAoyroy roura)!/ 8e ra 
a[i a</> jy av 
TTI rrjy )3a<riAiK7j 
5 yioyii>a UTTO [rwv . . . .]a>y KOI rou rpaTre^irov ouroy 

<[v roiy /A7}]iu[c]toty ro 

y [ojaa [iri roay vJTro^TjKcoy eoriy KOI r^v . . [. . 
A a 


/3ej3aio>r[. . KCU ocras cxao-jroi eis Tf\v /3e/3auocriv 
vnoOrjKas [ ......... ] SeScoKatriz; Kai row ei[A]T7<po[ra)i>] 

10 ra 8ifyyu77/ji[aTa ray . . .]ypa<pas on e7re<r/ce/x/x;[ai] 

ei<r> KO[I] eicrii; a[ ....... ]0ous a>s eav ri a7r[oAi]7ra>cr[i 

K . . 77 KaOrjKov T[ ......... ]a>criv [ ..... ]rei<roi>[r . .] 

TOIS 8] avair\[ripov<ri ras] a>p[as ................. ] 

15 fTti.fjLr]Trjs Kai o . . . . 
Kai avoicr[ov<riv cni rr]v 
[o]s 8 av a\\[o)s OIKOVO/XTJCTTJI rj 

Tavra fca ............ aTrorei<rei 

Col. 3. eis TO /3a(TiAiKOz> naO fKacrrov aStKTj/^ia ^ e 

KOI irpos rov bioi.K^rr]v KaraTrooTaATjcreTcu /xera 

ra r]()fVTa V7rapet ets 
5 xai ayayKacrflrjo-erai Trpoo-Sieyyvay rou Trapop.o\oyrjOfVTOs 
eav 8e 01 \af3ovres ra (n)/u,^3oAa rrjs 
CTTI TTJV rpairf^av 

e[/c]ao-ros auro>y 7^ a 
/c[at ou#]ei> T}cr<Tov ava-/K[a](r6r]cro 
10 ra (ru/xj3oAa eis TTJZ; [r]pa7refay 

eaz> 8e ri^es rcoy Kara^ovrcoy ra? covas 
(roo(riy fv root copto-juercot yjpovai fTrava.7rpa0r)<rovTat 

ai corai K[OI c]ay rt a(/ 

rot9 8e ^3ouAo/iei'ots u:rep^aeiv fiera TO rov 
15 ^aAAov 8o0Tji>ai e^eo-Tai ev auTcoi TCOI TrpaTr/ptau ou/c e 
[Aao-jcrovos 8e Tcoy [ejiriSeKarcoy 

[01 8] fyXafiovres ras toj/as TroirjtrovTat Ta a7ro7rpap-aTa 
[/xej-ra TOU [oiKoyo/^tov] Kai TOW /SacriAiKOU ypap.p.aTecoj 
[xai] 01 Trapa [TOUTtof] KaTacr^oyTes eyyvous 

Col. 4. rois Trpoyeypa/z/xevoi? a ou Aoyio-flrjo-erai rois 
eis ra 81 avrcoy KaTao-Ta^T/o-o/xeva 8ieyyrrj/xaTa 

Tj^rjcreTai 8e xai TO TOTrrcoy crv/u/3oAa TOI> avroy 
ai 8 ava<popai /mepio-^rjcroi/Tai TTJS /xev {vTrjpas 
5 TIJS \tp.pLvr]y fafj.r)vov Aoyi^op.ei'ou TOD 


5 aAAcoz' a>ra>i/ CK rov Kara Aoyor ra>t> 

Tol) a '- * ai; M 7 ? 7ri Tifcav aAAo ri 
trvv\(aprj6rji firi TTJS 7rpa<rea>? Tots 8 eyAa/i^arov<rti; 
10 TOS coj-as fji(Tabo6rj(r(Tai vno TU>V TTpoirpa.yiJLa.Tfv 

TO. y(vi]fj.ara TWV irpo(\r]Xv 
\fipoy pa<pias opxov /3a<rtAtKOU 

o < iaoyTfxoy TTJS eyTjxfcws (rvaTar}(TTat Troy avrous 
Kara /iT/ra K TCDV iriTrrowwi' CTTI TTJV 

15 rooy 8e irpoy yerrj/xara 
t<TTat 8ia T(ov irapa 

ov&iv be KCLI ot irapa TU>V o(.x.ovo\J.(av nai 01 
o 8e Aoyos rrjy 7rpo(ro8ou ypa(^i}<T^ai irpos rows 
irpos rpairffav KCLI TO. 8ieyyvrj/zara crt^fpao-^Tjo-f 

20 Trpos ra O(pfi\r]dr](rofj.(va irpos rov \cipi.(rfj.ov T<DV 

fj.a.T<i)v ra 8e (rvva^drjcrofj.fva biaypa<pi](rcTa.[i\ cis TO /3a<riAiKoi; 

Col. 5. acoAov0a)s rots vnap-^ova-i Trcpi rot^ooy Trpoorayp-ao-i 


TOI? 8 araTrAT/paxrovcrii; ray cora? 8o^7j(reTai o 

5 yt]d(vra rov 7* h x irpoo-Siaypa^ovo-iv CKTOS 
([yjAqx/^ws 01 8c irapa rcor<t)v 
fj.voi irpos Tf rovrois KOI rots aAAois X6ipi<r/iois 


10 atrrois TOIS 8 yAa/3ov<ri e^aKoAov^Tjcrci ra 

8e KOTa/3oAa>y (n;/A/3oAa Aa/x^ayeTaxrav Trapa rou 

vnoypa<pas (\ovra. irapa TU>V firanoXov 
eav 8 a[AA]a>$ oiKOVOfJL<a<riv a/crpoi avrois 
15 at 8oo-et? 

rcay 8< irpos apyvfpjioy (avtav irpoGbiaypatfrovviv aAayrjy 
cos TTJS pvas t = [c] xai Karaycoyiov f KCU 

A a 2 


<nrvp(,b<av Kai TaAA a^rjAco^iara afc COOT cwai i/3y 
Kai TCOI> Trpos %a\KOv Lcrovofj.[ov] faripas /uey x* / 31 * TT ? S 
20 vnoKifj.vr)s ij rrjy 7ricrKVT]i> bpaxjJirjs a KOI eis ro 
KaTaycoyiou aAAas [ ]/3 COOT eiuat y 

Col. 6. T0)y 8e AotTTwr coycov TO>V Trpfos \CL\KOV icrovofjiov] 
X<opts rcoy OTTO TOV xipi.<riJ.ov [ .............. ] 

Kai fis Ti^rjv (TTruptScoy Kat raXA ar^Afco/xara H ] 
eay 8e Tires TWZ; reXcorcoi' irAeious a>i>[as ey 
5 KOI 6^ ncriv pev eTriyeyTj^a Trotcocrti' ey [THTW 8 

arrtXoyio-^Tjo-eTai ra 7riyeznj//a[ra ....... ] 

rou eyKU/cAiou ocroi ar ..... i KCU a?rot[ ........ ] 

HT) TrpocrSteyyvT/o-ajo-ii' TOU oc/>eiAr;/iaTO? TOU[ ........... ] 

at corai TTavaTTpa.di](TOVTaL TOV fvpicrKOvros K[at TO o<^>ei] 

10 Xrjfjia Kai TO (xpevpena irpaxdr]arovTai. TOIS 8 ay[a.TT\r]pov(Ti\ ' 

TOS &)^a5 ou[^]ei? fic^e^ei TrArjr Tcoy CTTI TTJ[ ........ ] 

(TW/caTaypac/>?7<roju,ez>a>z> ear 8e irapa TauTa Trfoujcrcoeriz/j 
o Te ^Ta8ous aTTOTeto-et eTrmjuor J^ K Kai o [ ....... ] 

6av . . 

\a(3(av 7* K eav 8e rives Ttpos ras eyAr/\^eis oc/>e[iA.a>(rii;J 

15 TJ Trpafis eTTai ef e^os Kai eK TravTa>v aTeArj 
ea>s TOU aL eav 8e Tive[s 
X<wpis T<)v vnap-^ovo-tov TO 

K Ttiiv avevrivcy^evcov ye^^jaaTtoy ecos TOV a[L] 
cay 8e TIS OTTO TU>V vnap^ovaaiv ava\.t]^>Qt] irp[o](ra\0[ri(rcTai] 
20 Ta K.aOr]KOVTa TeArj TTJI eyA?j/x\/rei KOI or[ ........... 

rj 8ura/xeis a7r[oo-T]eiAayTo[s ........... 

7rai;a7rco[A]eio-0at Taj coyas ?;[ .............. 

Col. 7. 


ey TOIS 
]TOI eis Ta 
]vt$ fxrj oe/>ei 
01 Ti]v <v]r]v 


pj rjcrav 

(v TTJI 

VTra]p\ov(riv ev rots 

15 JKta Kara row 

] cy\a(3a>(Ti 

j VTTtp 


to ]rat 

Col. 8. rj/zepaj 8[exa ......... T]OU> rtjUTjo-^wf [cara ro 8ia] 

Troi[rj<roj;]rai ca0 [r//xc]paj; raj (K0<r[is fv roiy] 
[O/AOIOJJ] 8 KOI [irpoj T]OUJ arny/ofa^ea? ..... ] 

j/i^orrey row [rjyop]aKoros TO ovofj.a KOI 8ta [rtoz;] 
Trpoy TTJI rfpaJTre^rji ewi ras 8ia rou bta 
br]\ovfjivas [rj/ij^pas bwa xai aei rr/i 8eKa[rrji] 
Trapa/xevouo-i (w? TT/S eo-^arT;? copfajs rr;? Tj/xtpafs] 
8 imep/3o\iov treoTTjKJjfi] tcoy row Xu0[?]va]i 01 8e rpa[7re] 

avoio-ovo-iy cp. /jt> raiy [fcja^ rjfiepav f(p[rj}fj.(pi<riv 
10 (in rr/s 8iaypa0rjs rou reAovfs orjt ecKeirai eis i>7T6p/3o[Aioj;] 
fv 8c rots pirji'teioiy TO KaOfv [ro>y] CTTI Taj 5fxa r;p.fp[as] 

v 5 iri . cv[. . . p-lrj (KT(Or]i 
>cat rwi cTrifxcATjfrrji] 7rapaxpj|i[a] 
K<a<riv TrpaxOrja-ovraL (Ka<rrov [. . . .]/xaToj r[o ....... ] 

15 fjifvov TeXoj i:(VTaTT\ov[v fav 8] ot TeAa>[i>at x]ai 01 azr[i] 
ftTj 7roio)o-iv xfa^coj] Trpoyeypaurai KaTairooraAT; 
Trpos Toy 8io[iKJ7jT[T/f p-^Va </)uA.ac7/j xai ra i8ta 
[avr]a)V ava[\]ri(p0ri[<r(]Tai is TO j3a(n\iKov OVTCOJ yap TODI T 
[/3aoHA.]ei TO 8^ov] ecrrai 01 Tf /3ouXop,eroi KTr/o-ao-^ai TI Tcoy 
20 [ .......... ov] (TTfprjOrja-ovTai TOV TOIOVTOV. 

At Professor Lumbroso's suggestion I revised the text of this 
papyrus in Notices et Extraits by a study of the original in September, 
1894. Several corrections of the numerous inaccuracies found -in the 
Paris editors' text have already been published by Lumbroso, Revillout, 
and Wilcken in various books or articles, and the last-named in August 
1895 most generously placed at my disposal his unpublished copy of 


the text made several years ago. Where I have adopted his readings in 
preference to my previous ones, I have recorded the fact in the notes. 
Most of the papyrus has been explained by Lumbroso in the eighteenth 
chapter of his admirable Recherches. I confine my notes to points on 
which we have new suggestions to make, or on which the Revenue 
Papyrus throws light. 

[1.] i. Cf. Rev. Pap. [57] 3 and note on [53] 18. Whether irwXov^z; 
be right or not, I think this papyrus was issued in the king's name. 

TO a L is a great puzzle. The universal practice of the Ptolemies, so 
far as we know, was to count the period between their accession and the 
beginning of the civil year, Thoth ist, as their first year. Therefore if 
fis TO aL coincides with eis b<a$Kap.r]vov /ecu ras fTrayo/xe^as rj/xepas, not only 
is the first year of this sovereign a full year, but the papyrus seems to be 
written before the first year had begun. Revillout (R. E. vi. 154) has 
tried to solve the difficulty by supposing that the first year applies to 
the second Cleopatra, ?/ ct8eA.</>?7, who on his theory ousted Euer- 
getes II in the fortieth year of his reign, but decided not to begin the 
computation of her own reign before the next Thoth ist. The difficulty 
however of supposing that the sovereign did not begin his or her reign 
at once is equally great whether the preceding sovereign was dead or 
whether he was only exiled, and with regard to the particular year 
suggested by Revillout there is the further difficulty that a Theban 
papyrus (A. E. F. pap. 19) and an inscription (Strack. Mitth. K. Deutsch. 
A. I. in Ath. 1894, p. 230) are dated in the forty-first year of Euergetes II. 
I am inclined therefore to doubt whether ei? TO aL really coincides with 
fis b^beKafj-rjvov, especially as the starting-point of the tax is not, in accord- 
ance with the conjecture of the Paris editors, accepted by Revillout, a-no 
0o>0 eco]s Meo-oprj, but probably 0.1:0 /UTJJ;]OS Me<ro/>?j, cf. Rev. Pap. [57] 4 ; 
and I would suggest that by ' the first year ' is meant only Mesore and 
the firayoiJLfvat. rj^epaL, the rest of the b(DOKap.r]vov falling in the second 
year. It is not impossible that a reference to the second year is lost in 
the lacuna at the beginning of line 2. In any case there must have been 
an exceptional cause for Mesore being the starting-point, as Wilcken 
remarks ; cf. note on Rev. Pap. 1. c. 

4. Possibly 5uaio>s, cf. [8] 19. 

6. Perhaps npa-yp.aTevarecrda]!.. vopovs: cf. note on Rev. Pap. [21] II. 
biaypa.fjiiJ.aTa: cf. notes on Rev. Pap. [39] I and [73] I. 5iop0<ofie0a : i.e. 


, cf. Rev. Pap. [57] i. From the way in which these classes 
are mentioned, it would seem that the papyrus is not included in any one 
of them, and if so, I should suggest it is a Trpoypajz/ia, cf. Rev. Pap. [37] 6. 
But in [8] 5 there seems to be a cross-reference to another passage in 
the papyrus as a Siaypa^ia, though that would not show that the whole 
document was a biaypa^na, for 5taypa/i/xara are scattered up and down 
the ro/ios art rqt tXaiiuji, cf. Rev. Pap. 39. I note. 

9. The meaning appears to be, as M. suggests, that the tax-farmers 
were to fill up the list of /^ro^oi, not passing over any person who 
was liable (vTroAoyos) to be called upon to serve as r(Aa>i>Tjy, cf. [5] 3 
where 01 ava-nXripovvrfs receive a special o\lru>viov, and note on Rev. Pap. 
[34] 4. 

13. Cf. Rev. Pap. [34] 2, [56] 14-15, where the security has to be 
only one-twentieth greater. 

14. In this papyrus we find the /Sao-iAuos ypa^arets associated with 
the oeconomus, no longer the airiypacpeus, as in the Rev. Pap., cf. [3] 18, 
[4] 16-17. The antigrapheus is not mentioned in L. P. 62, though 
ai>Tiypa<peiy are associated with the tax-farmers in [8] 15. Cf. [8] 3, 
where I conjecture avnypafaas, though it is not clear whether these are 
the same persons as those mentioned in [8] 15, and see note on Rev. 
Pap. [3] 2. 

1 6. The Paris editors read TT(TTTa>[Kfv ....... oAAcoi; (sic), but there is 

nothing to justify TTCTT or oAAou' in the facsimile, so that if these letters 
ever existed here, they disappeared long ago. But a$ TJS av Tj^cpas is 
required by Trapo/ioAoyTjflrji . . . tv Tj/uepaiy A, cf. [2] 3, Rev. Pap. [34] 3 and 
[53] 6, and following [34] 4 I should suggest some phrase like TO? be 

[2.] 5. Perhaps 

6. juqiuctoi? : cf. [8] 1 1 . 

7. I was unable to decipher the mutilated letters after rr/v. Wilck. 
reads them co-, i. e. c<ro[ftvi}v] ) accepting the reading /36/3auo<r[u/ in the 
next line. The papyrus however seemed to me to have /3c/3cuo>r[. 

The Paris editors read ir]i TU>V vnoOrjKtov, but there is no trace of 
t rtav in the facsimile. 

9. iA7j</K)T<i)j; : cf. [3] 6. M. suggests TU>V ova-iw for the lacuna. 

10. Perhaps Karaypa^ay, cf. Rev. Pap. [34] 4. 
1 1. airoAiTroxn, cf. pap. Zois i, TO 


12. UHTIV I owe to Wilcken ; the meaning is clearly that the sureties 
are to be men of substance able to make up any deficiency left by the 

13. Cf. [1] 9 and note on [5] 3. 

14-16. Probably 8coa-ovo-i]v, cf. [3] 6-7 ear 8e ot \aj3ovrfs ra o-u;u/3oAa 
ny [fTTav\fvryK(i><riv rni rrjv Tpa-nffav. The conjectural restoration of 16 
occurred to me since I had seen the original, and I do not know whether 
rpancCav suits the vestiges of letters visible at the end of the line which 
in the facsimile may be almost anything. 

17. OIKOVO/XT/O-TJI : cf. [5] 14. 

1 8. Probably Kara TO upoypa^a or whatever the title of the papyrus 

[3.] 9. K[CU : Wilcken. 

II. Karacr^ovTdiv : cf. Jos. A. J. xii. 4. IO tlnocriv ITTJ KOI 8uo ra TTJS 

14. Cf. Rev. Pap. [2] I note. 

17. a7ro7ipa/xa : cf. Rev. Pap. [18] 16. 

[4.] i. TOIS irpoyeypa/^euois : i. e. the oeconomus and basilicogram- 
mateus, [3] 18; cf. [1] 14. 

7. M. suggests KaraXo-yov as one word. 

8. The number of the year here might be 8, 8 and a often resembling 
each other closely, but in the other cases it is certainly a. 

15. Trpos yeiTj/xara was seen by Wilcken and Mahaffy to be two words, 
and opposed to TO>V Trpos apyupiov a>vu>v and TO>Z> npos -^a\Kov HTOVOIJ.OV in 
[5] 16-19. The was in the third century B.C. partly a TT/JOS 
yen;|u,ara oovrj, but subsequently became an wvr) irpos \a\Kov LCTOVO^OV, 
cf. note on Rev. Pap. [37] 19, and App. iii. 

19. Trpos Tpane&v implies, as M. suggests, that the receipts of the tax- 
farmers were to be credited to them in money, and that the securities 
would be held in trust pending the 'handling of the crops.' Cf. Rev. 
Pap. [34] 10 note. 

21. Siaypcu^T/o-eTcu : cf. note on Rev. Pap. [34] 14. 

[5.] 3- As M. suggests, ot avairX-npovvres are those who offer to fill up 
the list of farmers or undertake to obtain rfXawcu and eyyvot. If they 
were successful, they were to receive a commission of 10 per cent., but 
they were not allowed to offer a person money if he would join in the 

(a? x f P a ovOfvt, ovOev Saxrouori). If they offered money, their recom- 


mendation was rejected. This is more satisfactory than taking 01 ava- 
wAqpovirrw as equivalent to 01 eyAa^oi-rcy, meaning the tax-farmers who 
fulfilled the terms of the contract. For in that case we should have to 
suppose that all reAawcu might receive an o^Kaviov besides the cTuyerrj/ia, 
but cf. Rev. Pap. [12] 13, [31] 14, and [39] 14 notes. These passages 
show that the payment of anything besides the 7riyjnj/za was then quite 
exceptional, and it is unlikely that the tax-farmers would obtain more 
favourable terms in the second century B.C. than in the third. If M.'s 
explanation is correct, the difficulty of obtaining tax-farmers and sureties 
had become serious. Cf. note on Rev. Pap. [34] 4. 

16. The premium on silver at this period was therefore IO^T percent, 
100 drachmae in silver being equivalent to i ic^.v drachmae irpos xoAxor, 
cf. App. ii (5), where the rate of exchange is not very different, and 
App. iii pp. 198-200 and 214-216. 

[6.] 6. Wilckcn suggests aurois. Cf. Rev. Pap. [17]. 

7. ay : Wilcken. 

ii. ovOfis : Mahaflfy. At the end of the line Wilcken suggests ewi 

13. Perhaps [Tiapa]\ap<av. 

14. Ofw in another hand seems to have no reference to the subject 
of the papyrus. 

15. There are here three regulations concerning exemptions from 
taxation; (i) arArj 8 (torto or /xcrera)?) eeos rou al_, stating that the 
existing areAciai would continue as before: (2) 16-18, stating that if any 
new exemptions were granted VTTO [ TOU /3a(o-iAeo>s) ?, an equivalent allow- 
ance would be made to the tax-farmers from the produce already 
collected : (3) 19-20, stating that if any of the existing arfAeuu were 
confiscated, the tax would be added to the sum which the tax-farmers 
had contracted to pay. 20-22 are obscure, but apparently refer to the 
tax being put up to auction again under certain circumstances. 

[8.] i . The Paris editors read SCKU [TO] uTrep/3o[Aioi> TCO]V rifiTjcre(oi>. 
There is no trace of 7Tf/>/3o in the facsimile, and there is not room for 
virep/3oAioy and rtav. Perhaps v[?rep rco]r. 

2. The subject of Troirjo-orrai is probably the oeconomus and basilico- 
grammateus, cf. [1] 14 note, and Rev. Pap. [14] 4 note. Perhaps irpos 
rots TeAconois, cf. line 5 irpos TTJI TpaTTtfri, but in line 3 vrpos has the 
accusative not dative, and the accusative is the natural construction. 



5. The ' ten days mentioned in the 8taypa/^t/xa ' may be a reference to 
the ten days in line i ; cf. note on [1] 6. 

14. [o^o]juaros, i.e. 'item,' suggested by the Paris editors, hardly fills 
the lacuna. There is not room for [a8iKTj]/xaros, cf. [3] i. 

19. If /3cunA.]ei is correct, it is another argument against Revillout's 
theory that the 'first year' refers to Cleopatra, cf. [1] i note. 
seems to be a mistake for 8i/ccucos. 

20. Possibly ayopafrvruv, cf. [1] 3. 





Uavvi 76 'A2/ia/3' 

5 EiifKp y 

[ ...... aAAa 

K 'AToe/3' 

1. See note on [24] 9. 

2. (xx). 

[/3curiAevoim>s nroAe/btaiov] TOV IlToAe/xatov (T<arqp[os 
. . <p lepeco? ...... ] rou Aaiorou . . 

5 ................ ...... 

]s /3a<riAca 
6 ovs aSeA^ov 1 rous T[ ..... ] 

[ ................ ]<is VJTO rou Ttpos nji av ..... ] 

[ ............... fijtpiSos ra x ) M aTl ' ca Trpay^a 

10 [ra ......... o/^uo/xoJKa ovre atTos voo-<pfiov<rdqi [. . .] 

[ ................ ] -napcvpevi^vy TJITIVIOVV tav [. . . 

[ .............. (Tv]vTf\lV (TOl avdr]fJLpOV TJ TTJl 

B b 2 



[paiai ]; TOH XI/XJHTIJI ypax/reoxu [. .]v 

[ ,]<a T(0v TrpayiJ.a[T](i>v ei? TO /3ao-[iXi] 

15 [KOI> ]c<rdat ran /3cunXei O/JK[ ] 

Ci . . . 

fjL(U(Vov . as rcoi opf/can . . . .] 

1. The formula shows that this papyrus cannot be older than the 
twenty-seventh year, cf. Rev. Pap. [1] i and Introd. pp. xix sqq. 

2. After -rov are two letters like 171. 

3. The number of letters which may be lost at the end of the line 
is not quite certain. The writing is extremely faint throughout. 

6. Cf. Wilck. Akt. xi, and P. P. xlvi (b). There is not much doubt 
that this papyrus is a written /3ao-iXtKos opuos ; see lines 15, 17, and cf. 
[27] 6 note. 

10. Apparently roor$ieio-0cu is intended. Cf. [27] n. 

13. ev ran AtjumrTji : perhaps the Fayoum, cf. [31] 12, note and [71] 
u note. The subject of the papyrus is connected with the building 
of the dykes for reclaiming land from the lake, cf. Cleon's correspondence 
in P. P. 


HpaxXetSTjs ..... et 

[j.Tpr)(rai rots UTroyeypa/jtjuevois yeoo/)yois 
8ia TO>V K(tifjiap-)(u>v KCU mofJ-oypa^fJiaTfutv 
baveiov eis TOV (nropov rgy K/)ora)j;ps 
5 tv root K<J-|_ ap.a TOIS fK(popiois KQOTWVOS 
K TOV KbL fis be TOUTO (TTL ...... 

n\r)6o$ Kai crvpfioXov Trapacr^ . . . Tr/pps . . . 

cppuxTo L Ke A6vp a (or X) 
et? BeiKViKiba bia K(p.ap\(av upoTwos ..... Tiapa 

i. The papyrus was covered with a thick coating of plaster and 


the ink is extremely faint ; the ends of the lines are for the most 
part illegible. Cf. the regulation concerning the distribution of seed 
in [48] 3 note. 

7. Perhaps uapaa-xts irpos ejxe. 

8. The twenty-fifth year belongs to Philadelphus or Euergetes. 

4. (E"). 

[ ..... ]TOV Xota\ KCU Tu/3t TOV 77 L 
[ws TOU] /ujjuoy x a T 1" X Kal ft)<r7 " Ap . . . icut 
5 [<vAa]Ktn/i TTJS Tlo\e)ji<avos ptpibos cos TOV yyvos it 
fx a ]P Kai a)crr Afx ..... toot TTJS 0e 
[cos rov prfvos v x a P Kat wre BLMVI rrjs 

[fXfptSos] COS TOV fXTJVOS /* X a ^ w Kat ^OTf 

[ ....... ]i TT;S fiixpa? Ai/ifT/s ws rov ^rjvos A x ^ 

10 [ ...... ] Kat a>crre e</>o8ots TOIS axoXou^ouo-i rwi 

[ ......... ] roimoi> ^>[uX]oKiTtoy ov&i \ o\j/<aviov 

[ ........ ] ecaoTOj;[. . .] x Kal wore TOIS 

[ .................. ] fiTjvos ovo-i K? vrj 

[ .................. ] Kai a>0re TOIS axoXou 

[dov&i .............. ] cai toore TOIS aKoAov 

15 [dovvi ................... ] avrov TK Kat 

[ .......................... ] Tots Ayr/uopi 

3. The eighth year may belong to either the third, fourth or fifth 

4. Judging by the comparatively low numbers of the drachmae, they 
are probably on the silver standard but Trpos xaAnov, cf. Rev. Pap. [40] 
and App. iii pp. 196-8. If ^eptSos after ejiiorov is understood, not 
written out, about five or six letters are lost at the beginning of lines 
3-10. eoore: cf. Rev. Pap. [CO] 21 note. 

5. cos TOU jiTjuos: cf. Rev. Pap. [12] 15. 

9. Aif-irrjs : M. Cf. P. P. xiii (5) 3, where a /xtKpa At/xirrj is mentioned. 

10. </>o8ois : cf. Rev. Pap. [10] i note. Here they are probably the 
inspectors of the dykes. 




(a) Col. 1. 


TO [A5Ly' ]a" 9 20 




5 T 
at apyv[piov] 




Col. 2. 


o ava 

5 Ae am 

K-y ava e 

//xe pvp 
ai apyvpiov 

yivcrai p 
10 (ruv 8e rois Trpos apyvpiov 

oivov -neptfivai 

Tq a c 

av[v] 5e [TOISJ -npos apyvpiov 
10 [KOI irepie<yai] oivou 
]rots A0ia<n;Aoi; 
] pAa Ka Lb' 

ava i v\. . 




] ava 





] ava 




] ava 


p M 0= 


] ava 

C < 

' T A<T[. 


] ava 




} ava 













] ava 


pAe = 





15 [01 apyvpiou ]Tr9^/ 


Kepa/xov poeL 

5 a<p a>v ireTrpafrai 

wpos apyvptov p.* [ 

iyy' ava i pXy = 

8 [ava] A<7 

WTjLy7/3' [ava] TJ 

10 c5L [ava] f = 

AS [ava[ ^~ 

(a) i. These fragments which all belong to a papyrus of the third 
century B.C., are probably accounts of an oeconomus or antigrapheus. 
They relate to metretae of wine received as taxes and sold, cf. [34] 10 
note, payment being made in copper or silver. They are for the most 
part in three columns, the first containing the number of the metretae, 
the second the rate at which the metretae were sold, the third the total 
amounts. The sums are added up at the bottom of each list, and where 
the payments had been made in copper, the sum is converted into the 
equivalent amount of silver. 


Dismissing for the moment col. i which is too fragmentary for any 
conclusion to be drawn from it alone, I proceed to col. 2 about which 
there is no doubt. The account in lines 3-8 is as follows 

24 metretae at 8 dr. 3 obols (-npos xaA.Koy) 204 drachmae 

70 8 dr. 560 

35 7 dr. 3 obols 262 dr. 3 obols. 

23 5 dr- T 3* dr. 

152 metretae 1157 dr. 3 obols 

which are in silver 1043 dr. 3 obols. 

It will be noticed that in line 6 the multiplication is incorrect, since 
the number of drachmae should be 115, but the addition is correct. 
1157 dr. 3 obols in copper were therefore equivalent to 1043 dr. 3 obols 
in silver. On this use of at meaning ' which are equivalent to ' cf. 
Leipzig pap. 8 F 32, and on the importance of this for the coinage 
question see App. iii. The average price of these metretae was 
a little under 7 silver drachmae each, cf. [31] 4 note. The average 
in line 9, IO44 T \ metretae for 7328 dr. 3 obols, is a little over 7 dr. for 
each metretes. In lines 5. 6, &c. L means J. 

(b) is a similar list of metretae sold irpos x a ^ K v> the total in lines 6-7 
being 385^ metretae for 3428 dr. i obol, which is in silver 3091 dr. 
i obols. The grand total in line 8 is 47 85! (corrected to 4810) metretae 
for 41964 dr. 4 obols, i. e. about 8 dr. 4 obols each. 

(c) is a similar list; a number of metretae are sold for 3/91 dr. 
ii obols, which is in silver 3399 dr. 4^ obols. Total 574! metretae 
for 4462 dr. 3 obols, i.e. a little over 7! drachmae each. 

In (d) the metretae are sold Trpos apyvpiov, the average being about 
8 drachmae, since far the greatest number is sold at that price. 

To return to (a), in col. i lines 10 and u obviously refer to metretae 
sold for 6 drachmae each, the totals being 209 and 160 drachmae, and 
we should expect line 12 to be the sum of these two lines, cf. lines 7-9. 
But in place of 369 drachmae, we have 332 dr. 4 obols. Probably the 
prices in 10 and n were irpos x a ^ KW > afl d the writer has given the 
equivalent amount in silver without writing down the amount npos 
xaAKoy. The proportion between silver and copper is then very nearly 
the same as in (c). 



i. Introduction. 

I PROPOSE in this Appendix to discuss the evidence available for 
the solution of three questions; (i) what was the normal ratio of 
exchange between a__silver and a copper drachma ; (2) under what 
circumstances was copper at a discount, and what was the discount ; 
(3) what was the ratio of weight between a silver coin and an equi- 
valent amount of copper coins, or what was the ratio between silver 
and copper regarded as coins, and was this the same as the ratio 
between silver and copper regarded as metals ? The generally accepted 
authority for the monetary standards and ratios of value in Ptolemaic 
coinage is M. Eugene Revillout, whose famous Lcttres d M. Lenormant 
in the Rev. Egypt, for 1882-3 have been thought to offer a satisfactory 
solution of the difficult problems. The evidence on which he there 
relied consisted partly of demotic papyri, partly of coins. Since then 
however much new evidence has come to light. In 1883 appeared 
Mr. Poolers monumental Catalogue of the Ptolemaic coins in the British 
Museum, in which we have a classification of the copper coins by 
a numismatist of the first rank. The discovery of the Petrie papyri 
and now of the Revenue Papyrus has revolutionized our knowledge 
of the earlier Ptolemaic period. Lastly Prof. Wilcken has collected 
much valuable information connected with the coinage in his forthcoming 
Corpus Ostracorum, information which he has most generously placed 
at my disposal. To these, I am told, will shortly be added M. Revillout's 
long promised Mttangcs sur la mttrologie et tfaonomie politique, &c. 
Whether he has changed his views in any respects I do not know, 
though from the fact that he has just republished his Lettres A 



M. Lenormant with only a few unimportant alterations, I conjecture 
that he has not. The uncertainty is perhaps regrettable, for the con- 
tention of this essay is that of the conclusions first enunciated by 
M. Revillout in the Revue Egyptologique, re-asserted in his Papyrus 
Bilingue du temps de Philopator (Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 1891-2), and 
now once more asserted in his re-issue of the Lettres, the greater part 
is altogether invalid, and the remainder requires in several cases 
much modification. Side by side with my criticism of M. Revillout's 
theory, I propose to develop my own theory on the whole problem, 
so far as the available evidence can as yet carry us. And here let 
me say that however much I may have occasion to disagree with 
M. Revillout, no one recognizes more fully than myself that it was 
his elucidation of the signs for the fractions of the drachma in Greek 
papyri, and the evidence from demotic papyri brought by him to 
bear upon the question, which have made any satisfactory solution 

The history of Ptolemaic coinage has been divided by M. Revillout 
into three periods; (i) the period of the silver standard from Soter 
to Euergetes ; (2) the period of transition, when copper first comes 
into general use in the reigns of Philopator and Epiphanes ; (3) the 
period of the copper standard from Philometor onwards. It will be 
convenient to follow this classification, and for the present I pass 
over the evidence of the copper coins, and confine myself to the 
documentary evidence, which, supplemented by the evidence of the 
silver coins, must be the first guide towards forming a satisfactory theory 
concerning the copper coinage, although the ultimate solution of the 
chief problems connected with the standard and ratio must be looked 
for more from the numismatist than from the scholar. 

2. Documentary Evidence for the period of the Silver Standard. 

First then as to the copper coinage of the three earliest Ptolemies, 
what was a copper drachma, and in what relation did it stand to the 
silver drachma? Here we are met at the outset by M. Revillout, 
who arguing from the silence of the demotic papyri on the subject 
of copper maintains that copper was only money of account, used 
merely for paying the fractions of the silver drachma, and that silver 


was the practically universal coinage. But how little reliance can be 
placed on the silence of the demotic documents was shown both by 
the Petrie papyri, which contain mentions of comparatively large 
sums paid in copper drachmae as far back as the thirty-first year of 
Philadelphus, and by the Revenue Papyrus, which proves that in the 
twenty-seventh year of the same king all the accounts of one of the 
principal revenues in the country, the oil monopoly, were kept in 
copper, the contractors paying the government in copper, [60] 13-15, 
and receiving payments in copper, [40] 9-1 1 note. 

Copper therefore was largely used in Philadelphus' time not merely 
in private transactions, but even in official payments to the government. 
In what relation did it stand to silver? The Rev. Pap. shows that 
in the case of the oil monopoly copper was accepted by the government 
from the tax-farmers at its full value. This is the only possible 
interpretation of [60] 13-15 7ra>Xou/i> TTJV o>rrji> -n-pos \a\Kov KOI Arj^o/ze^a 
<is TOV orarTjpa ofio\ovs Kb. From the context either the stater or the 
obols must be copper coins, cf. [76] 4. The silver stater is by far 
the commonest silver coin of the Ptolemaic period, and there is no 
evidence, documentary or numismatic, that there were copper staters. 
The phrase in the pap. C of Leyden, \O\KOVS orarrj/jfiTjovs, which has 
been sometimes thought to prove the existence of copper staters, is, 
as M. Revillout has excellently pointed out, quite different from \a\Kov 
oTOTTjpa?, and means 'copper coins representing staters.' Therefore 
in [60] 13 as the staters cannot be copper, and gold staters were worth 
20 silver drachmae, which is clearly unsuitable, they must be silver 
and the obols must be copper. The formula by which the equality 
between silver and copper is here expressed, not ' 6 obols = i drachma,' 
or '48 chalci=i drachma,' or anything else, but ' 24 obols = i stater,' 
is extremely important, because it shows that just as the typical unit 
of silver both here and in [76] 4 is the stater or tetradrachm, by far 
the commonest coin, so the typical unit of copper in both cases is 
the obol, which therefore was probably also a common coin. The 
'far-reaching consequences of this formula will appear when I come 
to discuss the demotic papyri of the next period. 

In the case of certain taxes then copper obols were accepted in 
payment of large sums without discount. But there is no mention 
in the Rev. Pap. of the 'copper drachmae' which are found in con- 



temporary documents from the Petrie collection. Wherever payments 
in copper are mentioned in the Rev. Pap., the payments are uniformly 
irpos xaXnov, i.e. in drachmae on the silver standard paid in copper, 
about which phrase there is no difficulty ; but the phrase \a\Kov bpaxpai 
does not appear. With regard to the instances of the last phrase in 
the Petrie papyri, is the theory provisionally proposed by Mr. Mahaffy 
to be accepted, that they are ' copper drachmae ' in the same sense 
as the copper drachmae of the next century which, whatever may 
be their precise ratio of exchange, were worth but a small fraction of 
a silver drachma ? 

There are nine instances of copper drachmae among papyri which, 
whether dated or not, can safely be attributed to the period before 
the great change from a silver to a copper standard took place. These 
are (i) part II. xiii (17), dated the thirty-first year of Philadelphus ; 
(2) xxvi (7), dated the thirty-third year of Philadelphus, where in line 7 
Wilcken reads the original TO. x a ^ KOV [fy ) ]p a X! u [ (01 ' *0]ifwwi ; (3) xxvi 
(6), dated the eighth year of Euergetes, which has yjaXK\ov K] ; (4) 
xxvi (4), dated the eighth year of Euergetes, where in line 8 I read 
Xa\Kov h A ; (5) xliv, written in the reign of Euergetes; (6) xiv (i c] ; (7) 
xxviii ; (8) xxxix (d] ; (9) xxiv (&) 1 . Of these (2), (3), (4), (8), and (9) 
are too fragmentary to prove anything. With regard to the rest the 
most noticeable fact is that nowhere among them are found the enormous 
sums in copper drachmae which are found in the next century, when 
e.g. the price of an ox is 21,000 drachme (L. P. 58, 11. 4-5); and the 
house of Nephoris and the twins is valued at 120 talents of copper 
(L. P. 22, 11. 18-19). In (i) 231 i dr. of copper are paid together 
with 617! dr. of silver; while in (5) the rent of a farm is 65 dr. of 
copper, apparently for a year. These facts alone would make us sus- 
pect that X<*A.KOU bpaxpai at this period are equivalent to the drachmae 
in payments -npos ^O\KOV of the Rev. Pap. For though it may seem 
at first sight that x a ^ KGV fy>axMt ought to mean in the third century B. C. 
what they mean in the second, to a Greek of the third century B. C. the 
drachma was essentially a silver coin, and in reality there is much 
less difficulty in speaking of a drachma of copper as a silver drachma's 
worth in copper than in using it for a ' copper drachma.' The question 

1 In P. P. part I, xxiii the large numbers refer not to copper drachmae, but to ravf)ia. 


is however definitely settled by (6), where in lines 3-5 the correct reading 

is Tt\lvdoV\K<H Ot (fl\Tl(t>OTf$ (\KV<TO.l [7T\lP0Ou] M 0)OT <tS TTJV 


tv TTroXe/xai8i /3ao-i[XiKrjj;] KaTa\v<riv, eKaorr/s M H i, \O\KOV \~ K. Mr. 

Mahaffy, reading the last letter x, was led to suggest that in this passage 
600 copper drachmae were equivalent to 10 silver. But the K is certain, 
and therefore the price for dragging 20,000 bricks (including the value 
of the bricks themselves, cf. i b) was 10 dr. x^* " for each 10,000. 
Now in xii (4) the price of 10,000 bricks is 12 dr., which, as the metal 
is not stated, we should expect to be silver drachmae, and in xiv (i b) 
the price of 10,000 bricks is 15 dr., \O\KOV being erased. The difference 
in the prices depends, as Mr. Petrie suggests, on the distance which 
they have to be carried. But it is absolutely impossible that the price 
of bricks could ever have been 10 copper drachmae per 10,000, if these 
copper drachmae are the copper drachmae of the next century ; and if 
any doubt can still rest on the identity of x<*A./cou bpa\ at this period 
with payments irpos x a ^ KOV > ft ls removed by (7). That papyrus contains 
a long list of names with sums of money opposite to them ; that these 
sums are copper drachmae is proved by the totals x a (^ KOV ) which occur 
e.g. in [1] 2, and the payments are clearly concerned with oil, which is 
probably sesame oil since cici is only specified in a few instances. 
The whole process of the manufacture and sale of oil is known from 
part C of the Rev. Pap., and there can be little doubt as to the cor- 
rectness of Mr. Mahaffy's suggestion in P. P. App. p. 5, that this papyrus 
is a list of eAaio/caTrrjAxH for the Fayoum together with the sums paid 
by them to the contractors, cf. [47] and [48]. Mr. Mahaffy remarked 
that all the sums were multiples of 7, but he might have gone a 
step further, for they are nearly all multiples of 42. If Mr. Mahafify's 
explanation of this papyrus is correct, the meaning of this number in 
the light of the Revenue Papyrus is clear. The retail price of a metretes 
of sesame oil and cici was irpos x a ^ KOV 4^ dr., [^0]. 9> therefore the 
eAaioKaTTTjXoi must have received the oil from the contractors at a re- 
duction, cf. [48] 13. And, though the retail price may of course have 
altered considerably between the date of the Rev. Pap. and that of 
the P. P. xxix, the correspondence between the number which 
would be expected and the number which is found is strong enough 


to make it extremely probable that the 42 drachmae x a ^ KOU are the 
price of a metretes paid to the contractors by the KcnrrjAoi, and that 
7 drachmae, of which the remaining numbers are multiples, was the 
price of 2 choes. In any case it is hardly possible to suppose that 
the 42 drachmae x a ^ KOV are calculated on a standard different from 
the 48 drachmae paid irpos x a ^ KOV " 

To sum up the results reached so far, while M. Revillout's contention 
that in the reigns of the first three Ptolemies there was only one 
standard has been vindicated from objections which might be brought 
from the Petrie papyri, his theory that copper was at this time merely 
money of account, used for the fractions of the drachma, and that 
as late as the time of Philopator all the taxes were paid in silver 
(Pap. Biling. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. Jan. 1892, p. 128), has been shown to 
be erroneous. As far back as the Greek papyri carry us, we find large 
payments being made in copper at its full value, even in payments 
to the government. Moreover the excessive rarity of all Ptolemaic 
silver coins of a smaller denomination than the tetradrachm shows that 
payments of sums less than 4 drachmae must habitually have been 
made in copper. In order to obtain the ratio between silver and copper 
at par, it only remains to discover the normal weight of the obol. 
But as on this point M. Revillout and I are not agreed, I postpone the 
question for the present, and pass to the consideration of the second 
question under what circumstances was copper at a discount, and what 
was the normal rate of the discount at this period ? 

The all-important authority for this would have been [76] 4-5, but 
the passage is mutilated and the decisive number is lost. Nevertheless 
several conclusions may be drawn from that passage. First the regu- 
lation concerns all banks throughout the country, therefore the rate 
of discount on the copper in question was the same everywhere. 
Secondly, as in [60] 13, the stater and the obol are used as the typical 
silver and copper coins. Thirdly, this copper which was at a discount 
must have been paid into the banks either as payment of a tax ir/aos 
XaX/cov, or of a tax which ought to have been paid in silver. But as 
the copper paid into the banks by the contractors for the oil monopoly 
was accepted by the government from them at par, [60] 13-15, it is 
very unlikely that, when the government came to reckon with the 
contractors for the banks, the bankers had to pay on the copper 


a discount which the contractors for the oil monopoly had escaped. 
Moreover the analogy of the next century, when copper was accepted 
at par (\a\Kos t<roi>o/*os) in the case of certain taxes and at a discount 
as payment of taxes which ought to have been paid in silver (\O\KOS 
, ov aXAayrj), makes it practically certain that even in the time of Phila- 
delphus copper was accepted at a discount by the banks on behalf 
of the government in payment of taxes which ought to have been paid 
in silver. 

What has been lost through the mutilation of [76] 4, can however to 
some extent be recovered from other sources. In App. ii. no. 5 there 
are three examples of the conversion of sums paid irpo? \a\Kov into silver 
drachmae. In (a) [2] 7-8 1 157$ dr. in copper are equivalent to 1043 in 
silver, in (b) 6-7 3429 dr. \ obol in copper to 3091 dr. i i ob. in silver, and 
in (c) 14-15 3791 dr. I \ obols in copper to 3399 dr. 4$ ob. in silver. The 
discount on copper is in the first two cases approximately loj per cent., 
in the third 9JJ per cent. It is noticeable that in the case of these sums 
which refer to wine, probably received by the oeconomus as payment 
of the aTro/iotpa and sold by him in the open market, cf. [33] 5, [34] 10, 
the rate of discount varies slightly, so that the official rate for the banks 
did not altogether control the rate of exchange in commercial trans- 
actions, although it is not likely that there was ever a considerable 
difference between the official and the private rate of discount. 

Besides this papyrus there is an instance of the rate of discount 
in ostracon 331 of Prof. Wilcken's Corpus, which records the payment 
of \a(\Kov) as K<7V TT, i. e. ' 80 drachmae of copper at the rate of 26^ obols.' 
The ostracon is dated in the twenty-second year of a Ptolemy who for 
palaeographical reasons must be one of the earlier kings, and as the 
drachmae in question must from the smallness of their number be 
calculated on the silver not on the copper standard, it is far more 
likely that the ostracon belongs to the reign of Euergetes than to that 
of Epiphanes, when copper drachmae usually, perhaps universally, 
meant copper drachmae on the copper standard. The meaning of 
the 26^ obols was in the light of [60] 13 and [76] 4 at once obvious 
to Mr. Mahafify and myself. This copper 'at the rate of 26* obols' 
means copper obols of which 26 J would be counted as the equivalent 
of a stater, as opposed to the 24 copper obols of the Rev. Pap. accepted 
at par. This explanation is completely corroborated by a hitherto 


unexplained passage in Pap. Zois I line 33, in which x a * *<?* (or 
possibly c, i. e. i obol) is prefixed to the sum which is elsewhere in 
the papyrus called \a\Kos ov a\\a-yrj, and these two passages confirm 
the view expressed above, that the obol is the typical copper coin 
just as the stater is the typical silver coin. According to the ostracon 
therefore 26 J obols in copper are equivalent to a stater or 24 obols 
in silver, and the rate of discount is n per cent., a little higher than 
the rates found in App. ii no. 5. 

Ostr. 329, which belongs to the same reign as Ostr. 331, mentions TT/>OS 
apyvpi(o}v ei]KovTa sc. drachmae. These must be different from 60 dr. 
apyvpiov, and probably %akKov is to be supplied, since x a ^ K s trpos apyvpiov 
occurs in the next century, and, as I shall show, means copper accepted 
at par. 

To sum up the slender evidence available for the rate of discount at 
this period, the most remarkable point is the excessive smallness of the 
premium on silver. For it is possible that from the 10 per cent., which 
seems to have been the normal rate, something ought to be subtracted 
for the carriage and other expenses of the heavier metal, cf. L. P. 62 [5] 
17, so that the real rate of discount may have been even less than 10 per 
cent. In any case it is probable that in many private transactions copper 
passed at its full value, and there is no evidence from the papyri that 
copper was in the time of Philadelphia and Euergetes a token coinage, 
nor, as I shall show, is there any from the coins. The reign of Soter, 
of whose copper coinage there is no literary and hardly any numismatic 
evidence, will be discussed later. 

3. Documentary Evidence for the period of Transition. 

The demotic papyri of this period show, according to M.Revillout,that 
Philopator was the first Ptolemy who introduced the copper standard of 
120: i, by which 24 copper ' argenteus-outens ' or, to give the demotic 
names of the coins their Greek equivalents which have been perfectly 
established by M. Revillout,48o copper drachmae, were equal to T 2 g- of a 
silver argenteus-outen, or 4 silver drachmae. Silver, he thinks however, 
still remained in Philopator's reign the principal standard (Pap. Biting. 
1. c. Dec. 1891, p. 80) for all Egypt, and in the next reign for the Thebaid, 
so long as it was governed by the insurgent kings, the discovery of 
whom is one of M. Revillout's most valuable contributions to Ptolemaic 


history. But for the rest of Egypt at the beginning of Epiphanes' 
reign, and for the Thebaid when it was reconquered at the end of his 
reign, the copper standard implying payment in copper became uni- 
versal in private transactions and appears even in payments to the 

Before discussing the demotic papyri of this period, I will consider 
the Greek. Two alone can be certainly assigned to the reign of Philo- 
pator, P. P. xlvii (see Wilck. G. G. A., Jan. 1895) in which the drachmae 
are silver, and the bilingual papyrus in the British Museum commented 
on (1. c.) at great length by M. Revillout. M. Revillout claims that the 
Greek docket of this papyrus confirms his previous theory about the 
standard at this period, and in order to explain certain ' anomalies ' in 
it builds up what is certainly a most elaborate and ingenious theory. 
Unfortunately, in all the points essential for the question of the coinage, 
M. Revillout has misread the papyrus, of which the correct transcription 
with an autotype is given by the Palaeographical Society, series ii, 143. 
The papyrus has not OKTO> 8io/3oAovs, i.e. 8 diobols, but OKTCD 5uo/3oAovs 
i. e. 8 (drachmae) 2 obols, the sign for drachma being omitted as so often 
happens on the ostraca ; not \O\K(OV) r\ a(AAay/js) reo-aapas oftoXovs, but 
XaAKiaiav reacrapas o/3oAof i.e. ' for \a\Ktaia 4 drachmae I obol.' If it 
is worth while to hazard conjectures about an unknown word like x<*^- 
Kiaiav, possibly it refers to the discount on copper, though on what sum 
is not clear, since the sum for xa\Kiaia is half the 8 dr. 2 obols, which 
was the tax of T V levied on the sale of the farm in question. But in the 
absence of any parallel passage it is useless to found an argument upon it. 

Thirdly, there is P. P. xxxii (i), dated in the eighth year of a Ptolemy 
who on palaeographical grounds was almost certainly neither Phila- 
delphus nor Euergetes, and who, as there is no reason for assigning any 
papyrus in the Petrie collection to the reign of Philometor, was therefore 
Philopator or Epiphanes, with a slight balance of probability, palaco- 
graphically, for Epiphanes. The question is of some importance since 
the copper drachmae mentioned in the papyrus are unquestionably on 
the copper standard, but cannot be decided unless it should appear that 
the copper drachmae on the copper standard were not instituted before 
Epiphanes' reign. Fourthly, there is P. P. xxvii. 5, undated, but written 
in a very peculiar hand quite different from the ordinary hands of the 
third century. The papyrus mentions enormous sums in \O\KOS ro- 



vofj.0? and x a ^ K s ov aXAay?j which are unquestionably copper drachmae on 
the copper standard, and it is therefore on every ground to be assigned 
to the end of the third century or the beginning of the second. Fifth, 
and most important of all, is P. P. xlvi, dated the second and fourth 
years of Epiphanes, where is found the mention of 2 talents and of 
i talent 516^ dr. in x a ^ KOS ^P * a(pyvptov), for so Prof. Wilcken rightly 
explains the abbreviation comparing the known use of XO.\KOS irpos 
apyvpiov elsewhere. It is quite certain that these sums were calculated 
on the copper standard ; and this will be a convenient place for con- 
sidering the meaning of the three difficult phrases x a ^ K s lowo/^oy, ov 
aAXayr? and vpos apyvpiov. The fourth technical term, x a ^ KOS fis K T V > 
has already been explained. 

It is to Prof. Lumbroso that the credit of elucidating the first two 
terms is due, see Rec. pp. 43-6. He there suggests that the distinction 
between them is purely financial and has nothing to do with two kinds 
of coinage. x a ^ KO? wovofjios is copper paid in the case of taxes in which 
payment was required in copper and therefore no discount was charged, 
while xaA*os ov aX\ayrj, copper on which there was a discount, is copper 
paid in the case of taxes which ought to have been paid in silver. This 
perfectly explains the passage in L. P. 62 [5] 16-21, and is confirmed 
by the interchange of x a ^ K s v o-XXayrj with x a ^ KO * t ? K< T V > since the 
one explanation suits both terms. M. Revillout however, when he 
was issuing his first edition of the Lettres, was not content with this 
view (see Rev. eg. iii. 117). He there suggests that X^KOS lo-ovofxos is 
the new copper coinage of Philopator and Epiphanes at the ratio of 
120: i, while XAKOS ou aAXayrj was the pre-existing copper of Phila- 
delphus and Euergetes, which as it was not on a ratio of 120 : i was at 
a discount. That I am not misrepresenting M. Revillout's meaning is 
shown by the fact that this view of XAKO? icrovonos as a coin is men- 
tioned as his by Mr. Head in his Historia Nttmmontm, p. 713 note, and 
by Mr. Mahaffy in P. P. part ii. Introd. p. 12. This explanation suits 
excellently, and indeed would, if correct, be a strong argument for the 
position which M. Revillout there and elsewhere, as in Pap. Biting. 1. c. 
Dec. 1891, p. 96, takes up, that a drachma x a ^ KOV i<rovofj.ov, or copper 
drachma weighing the same as a silver drachma of which it was worth 
jl^, was the invention of Philopator ; but it is quite incompatible with the 
position which he adopts in his discussion of the weights of the copper 


coins, when he speaks of la proportion prdexistante ' of 120 to i set up 
by Philopator, and makes the identity of weight and value between the 
obol on the silver standard and the 20 drachmae on the copper standard 
the whole basis of his system. The confusion is made worse by the fact 
that in his explanation of KTOVO^OS in Pap. Biling. I.e. Jan. 1892 he 
returned to the view expressed by Prof. Lumbroso and yet speaks of 
the ' nouvelle isonomie ' in the time of Philopator. The fact is that 
M. Revillout has tried to stand alternately upon two contradictory pro- 
positions. Either copper at 120: i was instituted by Philopator, or it 
was not. If it was (as M. Revillout says in Rev. e*g. iii. 117 and Pap. 
Biling. 1. c. p. 96), and the previously existing obols of Philadelphus did 
not weigh the same as the new 20 drachmae pieces of Philopator, then 
M. Revillout has successfully demolished his own theory of the weights 
and the identity of the obol with the 20 drachma piece, which is the basis 
of his theory of 1 20 to J as the ratio between both the value of a silver 
and a copper drachma, and the weight of 120 copper drachmae and 
one silver drachma. On the other hand if M. Revillout elects to stand 
by his weights, he must, to be consistent, renounce his first explanation 
of HTovofjios as having anything to do with coins, and cease therefore 
to speak of 'cuivre isonome' as if it were a special coinage at all. 
Which horn of the dilemma M. Revillout is prepared to choose I do not 
know, for in his recent re-issue of the Lcttres he speaks of KTOVO^OS as 
he spoke of it in the first edition of the Lettres when, to judge by his 
article which appeared contemporaneously in the Rev. eg., he believed 
his own explanation of that term. But as that explanation was fatal to 
his theory of the coinage and is on his own showing contradicted by 
the coins, I shall assume that he now adopts Prof. Lumbroso's explana- 
tion which is less disastrous to him, and for the present content myself 
with pointing out that the only support from the papyri which might be 
given to his theory that the copper drachma and silver drachma after 
Philopator's time weighed the same, must be withdrawn. How far the 
theory will stand without this support will be discussed later. 

It is noticeable that to-oropios and ov aAAay?; have not yet been 
found with drachmae on the silver standard, while x a ^ KOS CIJ K< 3"V and 
perhaps \O\KOS Trpos apyv^iov are found applied to copper drachmae on 
both standards. Just as \a\nos is K$-V seems to be the forerunner of 
\O\KOS ou aAAayr;, which usually, though not always, as the papyrus of 


Zois shows, superseded it, so yaXwi Tipos apyvpiov seems to be the fore- 
runner of \a\Kcs KrovofjLos, which after the adoption of the copper standard 
became the commoner term. First a term is required in the period of 
the silver standard to be contrasted with xaXnos ei? K<TV and to mean 
copper which was accepted at par. Secondly the literal meaning of xaA*os 
Trpos apyvpiov, 'copper against silver' (cf. [60] 13 ircoAov/xez; Trpos ^a\Kov), 
suits the view that it is identical with XAKOS KTOVOJUOS, while it is very 
difficult to see what third class of copper could exist in addition to copper 
at par and copper at a discount (cf. L. P. [5] 16-21). My explanation is 
somewhat confirmed by a comparison of P. P. xlvi with a second century 
B. c. ostracon, cf. note on [37] 19. In the papyrus a surety has to pay I 
talent 516^ dr. x^A/coti irpos apyvpiov on behalf of a taxfarmer who was unable 
to pay the goverment the two talents which he had agreed to collect as 
the a-rrofj-oipa from two villages. It is by no means certain that because 
the surety had to pay in x a ^ KO * ^P * apyvpiov, therefore the two talents 
originally promised were also in x a A<o? Trpos apyvpiov. But the analogy 
of the Zois papyri, in which the original debt and the sum paid by the 
surety are both in x^A/cos ov aXXayy, at any rate makes that view tenable. 
If this assumption be correct, the identity of \a\Kos Trpos apyvpiov with 
XaAxos icrovopos is practically certain, for the ostracon shows that the 
ciTro/uoipa in the second century B. C. was no longer an (avrj irpos yeinj/xara 
or Trpos apyvpiov, as it had been in the time of Philadelphus [24] 4, 10, 
12, but had become an corrj Trpos x a ^ KOV KTOVOJJ.OV, since the payment 
recorded by the ostracon is in x^A/cos i(rovop.os and there is no reason to 
suppose that XAKOS TT/JOS apyvpiov represents a third stage intermediate 
between the other two. The phrase xA/cos Trpos apyvpiov is found as late 
as the fortieth year of Euergetes II, see Wilck. Akt. i. 19; and the 
meaning which I have proposed is quite consistent with its use there, 
where it is interchanged with xaAxo? alone. 

So far as the slender evidence of the Greek papyri from this period 
carries us, it confirms M. Revillout's theory that the general change 
from the silver to the copper standard took place at the beginning of 
Epiphanes' reign, but it is indecisive on the question whether the copper 
drachmae were instituted side by side with the silver by Philopator, and 
on the question what their exchange value was. These problems there- 
fore must be discussed on the evidence of the demotic papyri. The 
equivalence of the demotic names of coins in Greek drachmae has, as 


I have said, been perfectly established by M. Rcvillout, whose theory, 
based at first only on demotic, has been since confirmed by numerous 
bilingual papyri and ostraca. The demotic system is founded on the 
1 argcnteus-outen ' or 20 drachmae, divided into 5 shekels or tctra- 
drachms and 10 kati or didrachms ; and as the 'argenteus-outen,' 
shekels, and kati may be either of silver or copper, the drachmae may 
equally be silver or copper. The numbers found in the period of the 
silver standard are very small compared with the numbers in the period 
of the copper standard, when thousands of ' argenteus-outens ' not infre- 
quently occur, and there is, as a rule, no difficulty in determining which 
standard is meant. The same cannot however always be said of the 
formula 24 = T 2 ff , from which M. Revillout arrives at the ratio of 1 20 : i 
between the value of a silver and copper drachma. As M. Revillout 
bases on two papyri his theory that Philopator gave the name of ' argen- 
teus-outens ' and drachmae to the previously existing copper coins called 
obols and chalci in Greek (since no mention of copper has yet occurred 
in a demotic papyrus earlier than Philopator, I leave their demotic 
names to M. Revillout), I give his latest translation of the passages in 
the two papyri relating to the coinage, together with an example from 
the later period, when there is no question as to the standard meant. 
But first, for the sake of clearness, it is necessary to point out that in 
discussing the ratio of exchange between silver and copper drachmae, 
I am not discussing the ratio between silver and copper as such, 
that is to say the ratio of value between a silver and copper coin of 
equal weight, which is another and distinct question, to be decided by 
different evidence. We cannot find out the last question until we have 
a more or less probable hypothesis on the question how many copper 
drachmae were worth one silver drachma. But even if we solve the first 
question and find out how many copper drachmae were worth one 
silver, we still cannot discover the answer to the second unless we know 
how much a copper drachma normally weighed, and this is just the dis- 
puted point. I do not of course mean by this to imply that we are not 
much nearer to the ultimate ratio when we have found out the ratio of 
value between a silver and a copper uten and drachma. Both the 
Greek and the demotic names for the copper coins imply certain weights, 
but unfortunately there are at least two possible utens and drachmae of 
different weights. The choice of one or the other of these alternatives 


must depend on which suits the general classification of the coins best, 
and that can be decided only by an expert in the coins themselves. In 
fact no theory of the ratio of exchange between a silver and a copper 
drachma can, in the absence of direct evidence, be accepted unless it 
explains the coins ; and on the other hand, a theory based on proba- 
bilities will be raised to a much higher level of certainty, if it explains 
the coins. The two questions therefore have these points in connexion, 
and as on M. Revillout's theory the answer to each is the same, he 
naturally does not keep them distinct ; but, as I have said, the solution 
to each really comes from a different quarter. No papyrus can tell us 
the normal weight of the copper drachma, on which the ultimate ratio 
between silver and copper depends. The scholar may with the help of 
the numismatist lead us to the edge of the stream which separates us 
from the ultimate ratio, but it is only the numismatist who can conduct 
us across the ford. It is because M. Revillout, at any rate in the latest 
exposition of his theory, has attempted to dispense with the numismatist, 
that his system, as a whole, breaks down. But in the meantime I return 
to the question of his demotic formula. 

The formula 24 = ^ first occurs in a papyrus dated the fifth year of 
Philopator. In Rev. eg. i. 121 M. Revillout translates the passage 
' Tu as 5^ argenteus dont le change a me reclamer.' In Lettres 
p. 238 he expands this into ' Le debiteur doit payer 5 argenteus et T V 
en tout (en monnaie d'argent) ou en monnaie d'airain au taux 24 unites 
d'airain pour T - ff d'unite d'argent.' 

The second instance occurs in a Theban papyrus dated the fifth year 
of Harmachis, one of the insurgent kings, and M. Revillout translates 
(Rev. eg. i. p. 121) ' Tu as 2 T \j argenteus . . . dont le change en airain 
est 24 pour YJJ a me reclamer.' In Lettres p. 238 he translates it 'Tu 
as 2 T V argenteus a me faire ou en equivalence de 24 pour T %.' 

A third instance, which I select from the period when there is no 
question as to the standard, is in a papyrus at Dublin, dated the fifth year 
of Philometor (Lettres p. 239), ' contenant une amende de 1000 argenteus 
ou 5000 sekels en airain dont 1'equivalence est de 24 pour j 2 ^ .' The 
same formula is found in numerous demotic papyri of the second century. 
I shall lay no stress on the uncertainty still attaching to all translation 
of demotic when there is not the Greek to compare it with, but shall 
frankly admit the following points about the formula : 


(j) That the word which M. Revillout translates variously* melange,' 
'Equivalence,' ' change/ and ' taux ' has to do with the exchange between 
silver and copper. 

(2) That the 24 refers to unities of copper. 

(3) That the T 2 ff refers to a unity of silver' and means T V of an 
' argenteus-outen,' i. e. 2 kati or 4 drachmae. 

(4) That the 24 and the T a ff are equated. More than this M. Revil- 
lout himself cannot desire. Then does M. Revillout's theory of the 
ratio of 120 : i between the value of a silver and copper drachma follow, 

(a) for the reigns of Philopator and the insurgent kings in the Thebaid, 

(b) for Epiphanes and his successors? 

The question turns on what is meant by the ' unities of copper ' in the 
three cases. M. Revillout's explanation is that the 24 in all cases refer to 
the copper ' argenteus-outens,' and that, translated into drachmae, the 
formula means, '480 copper drachmae = 4 silver drachmae.' There is how- 
ever this great difference between the first two papyri and the third. In the 
first two the only argentei mentioned in the papyrus are on the silver 
standard, in the third the argentei are on the copper standard. The 
first papyrus does not say ' 5^ argentei or in copper 624 argentei at 
the rate of 24 for j 2 ^,' but simply ' 5 T 2 argenteus dont le change (en 
airain est 24 pour T 2 D ).' It was natural that M. Revillout, who denied the 
use of copper, except for the smallest payments, in the reigns of Phila- 
delphus and Euergetes and thought that its extensive use began with 
Philopator, should, ignoring this difference, explain the first two papyri 
in the light of the third. Since however it has been shown that copper 
was largely used even in the reign of Philadelphus, and M. Revillout 
admits that in the other papyri of Philopator's reign and those of the 
insurgent kings there are no instances of any argentei other than those 
on the silver standard, and since it is obviously better to explain 
a formula in the light of something which is known to have existed 
previously, than in the light of something which did not, it is neces- 
sary to ask is there anything in the first period, when it is certain that 
no copper argentei on the copper standard existed, with which the 
formula 24 = ^ can be connected? If so, the necessity for attributing 
to Philopator at any rate the institution of copper argentei at the ratio 
of 1 20 : i will disappear. 

The answer is what the reader has doubtless himself anticipated 


that the formula of [60] 15 X^opeQa, cis TOV a-rar^pa o/3o\ous *8, is the 
original of which the demotic formula ' at the rate of 24 of copper for 
2 kati (i. e. 4 drachmae) of silver ' is the translation. I say advisedly 
that the Greek is the original. The coinage of the Ptolemies was issued 
by Greek kings from Greek mints at Greek cities, and under Greek 
names. These names the Egyptians refused to adopt into their own 
language, preferring to equate as far as possible the coinage of their 
conquerors to their own time-honoured system. But it must not be 
forgotten that the Egyptian names of coins and all the formulae con- 
nected with them are translations from the Greek, and that the ultimate 
explanation must come from the Greek, not from the demotic. I have 
insisted somewhat strongly on this point, because it is my answer to 
the objection which may be levelled against this part of the present 
essay that it is presumptuous for me to criticize the interpretations of 
demotic scholars. If the formula 24 copper = j 2 ^ silver has no analogy 
to the passage in the Revenue Papyrus, M. Revillout's translation 
of it must be far from the truth, for the correspondence between the 
formula and [fO] 15 is exact. In both there is an equation be- 
tween unities of silver and unities of copper, in both the number of 
the copper unities is 24, and in both the meaning and number of the 
silver unities comes to the same, 4 drachmae. The only difference 
is that in the demotic the name of the 24 copper unities is un- 
certain, in the Greek it is given and is the obol ; and therefore in the 
demotic it is the demotic equivalent of the copper obol, whatever 
that may be. 

At last firm ground has been reached. There is no longer any 
reason for separating the monetary system of Philopator from that of 
his predecessors, or in fact to suppose a transitional period at all. The 
dividing line, so far as the evidence goes, is the adoption of the copper 
standard at the beginning of Epiphanes' reign for Egypt without the 
Thebaid, at the end of his reign for the Thebaid as well. 

Another question, which arises out of the occurrence of the formula 
24 = T 2 ff in the 2 papyri of Philopator and Harmachis, is why was the 
formula inserted, with what was it contrasted ? On M. Revillout's 
theory the object of the formula was to show that the payment might 
be made not in silver argentei, but in argentei on the copper stan- 
dard of 1 20: i. But as it has been shown first that the 24 unities 


of copper in question are probably obols, not copper argentci, secondly 
that copper was largely used as far back as Philadelphus, some other 
explanation is necessary. Here again, if the Greek be taken as the guide, 
the solution is easily found. In [60] 15, the 24 obols at par were 
clearly contrasted with obols at a discount as in [76] 4, and the 
ostracon which mentions xa\nos as K<J-V gives an example of what the 
discount was. Since the formula 24 = f v was the demotic equivalent 
of the Greek, it too was contrasted with copper of which 26 J or any 
other number of obols were paid for a stater M. Revillout will perhaps 
object, as he once objected when criticizing Droysen, Rev. g. ii p. 279, 
that the demotic papyri give no examples of copper at any other ratio 
than 24 = -j's, but as another ratio is found in Greek papyri and ostraca, 
the objection is disposed of; moreover in denying the existence of an 
extensive copper currency in the time of Philadelphus and Euergetes, 
the unsoundness of arguing from the silence of the demotic documents 
has already shown itself. 

So far therefore as the documents of Philopator's reign are con- 
cerned, M. Revillout has not yet come to the ratio of value between 
a silver and a copper drachma, for he has not yet come to the period 
of copper argentci and drachmae, but is still in the period of copper 
obols. Does the demotic formula however give the ratio for the reign 
of Epiphanes and his successors ? The fact that in the papyri of this 
period the argentei mentioned are on the copper standard makes it 
much more intelligible that the 24 should refer to them in these papyri 
than in the two papyri where the only argentei mentioned were on the 
silver standard. On the other hand, since it appeared that in the case 
of the two papyri of Philopator and Harmachis the 24 referred to obols, 
it is a perfectly tenable position to hold that the 24 throughout means 
obols, not copper argentei. In the first 'place it is now known that the 
formula 24 = & in any case belongs to the period when there were as 
yet no copper argentei ; and, since the Greek original of the formula 
dates back to Philadelphus, it is far more probable that the demotic 
formula goes back to the same reign than that it was first used in the 
reign of Philopator. And if the formula 24 = T % was well established 
at the time when the change was made to copper argentei, it is perfectly 
possible that the formula ' 24 unities of copper (i. e. obols) for T V silver ' 
should be continued after obols had given place to copper drachmae on 

E e 


a copper standard. This argument will be much strengthened if it can 
be shown that a parallel case exists of a term properly belonging to 
obols alone, but continued in the period of the copper standard. Such 
a parallel is afforded by the converse phrase x a *> K s et * K T V - That 
phrase was first found in the period when the copper coins were called 
obols, and it is strictly applicable only to that period. Nevertheless it 
is used in the Zois papyri with a sum of copper drachmae on the copper 
standard. But why, if the ratio of exchange between silver and copper 
was 120: i and the old copper obol was now 20 drachmae, did not the 
writer say ' copper at the rate of 525 copper drachmae for a stater ' ? 
Obviously the answer is that in equating silver and copper the obol 
had been and continued to be the typical copper unity. 

Applying this to the demotic formula we are on the firm ground 
of the Greek so long as we maintain that the 24 refer to obols, but we 
are on the treacherous path of assumption, if we maintain that the 24 
refer to the copper argentei ; while to argue that the obol was the copper 
argenteus is obviously to beg the whole question at issue. If it can be 
shown on other grounds that the ratio of exchange was 120:1, and 
therefore the obol and the copper argenteus were identical, the demotic 
formula may be taken as confirming that view. But to attempt to prove 
the ratio from the formula is to argue in a circle. We should indeed find 
the ratio of 120 : i, but only because we had already put it there. 

The conclusion therefore is that if the demotic formula is the only 
evidence for the exchange ratio of 120:1, the verdict must be 'not 
proven.' But the other evidence leads to the consideration of the 
third and last period. 

4. Documentary evidence for the period of the copper standard. 

With Epiphanes the monetary changes of the Ptolemies came to an 
end. The Greek papyri mention almost universally copper drachmae 
on the copper standard, with occasional mentions of silver, chiefly in 
payments of fines or taxes. In the demotic, from the reign of 
Euergetes II M. Revillout distinguishes two kinds of silver coins, 
first, the 'argenteus fondu du temple de Ptah' accompanied by the 
same division into fractions which he says that he has found in the 
demotic papyri of Darius, Philip, and Euergetes I, and secondly, the 


'argenteus en pieces d'argent grave" .' The last he connects with the 
Greek phrase found in pap. O of Leyden, apyvpiov (TTKTTJ/ZOV riroAjiaiKou 
pofzioyxaTos, and explains it as the normal coinage struck by Euergetes II 
and his successors, while he explains the other as the ' vieil argenteus,' 
(LettrcSt p. 244), though whether he means by this the silver coins 
of the Persians, as contrasted with the silver of the Ptolemies, or the 
heavier silver of Soter compared with the lighter coinage of his successors, 
or the purer coinage of the earlier Ptolemies with the more or less 
debased silver of the later kings, or all three, is not clear. But, at any 
rate, if the argenteus ' en pieces d'argent grave" ' is equivalent to apyvpiov 
fnicninov K.T.A., then apyvpiov cTiKnjfjMv according to M. Revillout, is not 
silver of the best quality. How does this view suit the papyrus O of 
Leyden ? 

No papyrus has been more discussed than this one, which has been 
the standing difficulty with regard to the rate of exchange between 
silver and copper drachmae, and the rate of interest, for the last half 
century. The papyrus is dated the twenty-sixth year of Ptolemy 
Alexander and records the loan of apyvpiov fTTia-rj^ov TlroXe/LiaiKou VOJJ.KT- 
/biaroj bpa%fjLas ZcKabvo. The debtor binds himself if he does not repay 
the sum at the stipulated time to pay the wioXiov, i.e. 18 drachmae, 
and interest from the stipulated time of repayment at the rate of 
60 copper drachmae a month for each stater. 

In the discussion of this papyrus M. Lumbroso, as usual, is the best 
guide. In pp. 171-2 of his Rechcrc/ies, he states the theories of his 
predecessors: (i) Letronne, who arguing that the stater was a gold 
coin worth 100 silver drachmae and that 60 copper drachmae were 
worth i silver, arrived at the interest of 1 2 per cent, a year : (2) Reuvens, 
who postulating a stater of gold worth 20 silver drachmae and an exchange 
ratio of i : 30 between silver and copper drachmae, arrived at the interest 
of 1 20 per cent.: (3) Leemans, who assuming the same gold coin, but 
an exchange ratio of r : 120 between silver and copper, reached the 
interest of 30 per cent. Against all these theories M. Lumbroso brings 
two weighty objections ; in the first place, there is absolutely nothing 
to show that the stater in question was anything but a silver stater, 
especially as the loan in question was in silver and the normal stater 
of the Ptolemaic period without further definition is the silver stater, 
a statement which is entirely confirmed by [60] 15 and [76] 4 ; secondly, 

E e 2 


that the rate of interest in the papyrus is clearly exceptional, being the 
interest on a fine, and therefore it is difficult to apply to it more or less 
parallel cases of the rate of interest under normal circumstances. 
M. Lumbroso tentatively suggested a theory of his own that the 
stater in question was a silver octodrachm, based on the erroneous 
supposition of Letronne that the gold stater was an octodrachm. 
But as M. Revillout has shown, the only staters in Egypt were the 
gold didrachm and the silver tetradrachm, and the choice therefore 
is narrowed down to these two alternatives. 

M. Revillout (Lettres, p. 153) adopts M. Leemans' theory that the 
stater in question was the gold didrachm, worth 20 silver drachmae, 
which on the exchange ratio of 120:1 between silver and copper 
drachmae gives 30 per cent, interest, and tries to support it by 
adducing instances of interest at 30 per cent., though the fallacy of 
the argument from analogy in this case had already been pointed 
out by M. Lumbroso. The supposition that the stater could be 
a silver tetradrachm was dismissed by M. Revillout on the ground 
that this would result in a rate of interest of r 20 per cent. M. Revillout 
has here by an oversight understated his case, for if the stater in question 
was an ordinary silver one and the rate of exchange 120: r, the rate of 
interest is 150 per cent. The difficulty however of supposing that the 
rate of interest was, in the case of a fine, as high as 150 per cent, is much 
less than that of supposing the stater to be a gold stater, seeing that the 
papyrus records a loan of silver and the stater is the commonest silver 
coin. But was the stater in question an ordinary, i. e. as the silver coins 
of this period show, a debased stater? The phrase apyvpiov eirioTj/xou 
llToAe/xaiKov vo/xt(r/xaro9 seems to me to point to the silver coins lent 
being unusual, though as Wilcken in a recent letter pointed out to me 
the 12 drachmae apy. CTTIO-. K.r.A. are in the summary at the beginning of 
the document called 12 dr. apy(vpiov) po(/xio-juaros) simply, and apyvpiov 
ro/xio-jbiaros does not differ from apyvpiov alone. But in any case the 
possibility that these 12 dr. were staters coined by one of the earlier 
Ptolemies cannot be eliminated, and there is no means of discovering 
what the premium on pure silver coins at this period was. It is perfectly 
possible that in the first century B.C. the staters of Soter on the Attic 
standard passed at 100 per cent, premium or more. But if the stater 
in question refers to one of these staters at a premium, the interest was 

APPENDIX 111. 213 

very much less than 150 per cent., and as the argument from the analogy 
of the rate of 30 per cent, found in other papyri is not only irrelevant 
but misleading, since the rate in the case of a fine would probably be 
higher than the normal rate, the theory that the stater in question was 
a silver stater, whether of pure or of debased metal, provides an adequate 
solution without rendering it necessary to complicate the question by 
the irrelevant introduction of gold into a papyrus which records a loan 
of silver and therefore implies interest on that silver. But as the rate 
of interest perhaps depends on the unknown premium on pure silver, 
and is under any circumstances exceptional, the papyrus cannot help 
towards finding out the normal rate of interest, nor can it even be used 
to confirm, much less to prove, any theory concerning the ratio of ex- 
change between the normal or debased silver drachmae of this period 
and the copper drachmae. 

To return to the question of M. Revillout's identification of 'pieces 
d'argent grave*' with apyvpiov f-nia^fjiov and his explanation of both as 
the ordinary silver coins of the late Ptolemies, the interpretation of the 
papyrus O of Leyden is so complicated by the exceptional circumstances 
of the case, that it is very doubtful whether it can serve as a basis for 
generalization. The staters of Soter and Philadelphus which remained 
in circulation must have commanded a large premium. But the descrip- 
tion in Greek of the staters of pure silver, as contrasted with the more 
or less debased staters of the later Ptolemies, is quite uncertain. 

Since the arguments in favour of the exchange ratio of 1 20 : i have 
been found inadequate, and as the arguments adduced by Prof. Lumbroso 
in his Recherches rest on passages where the original editors of the 
papyri in question had misread the text, while the evidence of the 
ratio of exchange in the Roman period, as Mommsen has pointed out, 
cannot be admitted as evidence for the Ptolemaic, there remains the 
argument of M. Bernardino Peyron, the original founder of the theory. 
Comparing two passages in papyri nearly contemporaneous in which 
the price of an artaba of o\vpa is given, first as 2 silver drachmae, 
secondly as 300 copper drachmae, the price in the latter case being 
in a period of great scarcity, he suggested that the normal price was 
probably about 240 copper drachmae, and so proposed the exchange 
ratio of 1 20: i. This argument, though far too weak to serve as a sole 
basis for the exchange ratio of 120 : i, is nevertheless fairly conclusive 


evidence against supposing that the ratio was more than 150: i, or so 
low as 30 : i, as was once proposed, and it is a strong though hardly 
conclusive argument against the theory of Letronne that the exchange 
ratio was 60 : i. 

But though the documentary evidence on which these distinguished 
scholars based the theory of 1 20 : i is very far from being conclusive, 
their verdict is not therefore lightly to be set aside. Their general 
conclusion, which is on the whole supported by recent discoveries, 
is in favour of 1 20 : i as the exchange ratio between silver and copper 
drachmae, on the ground that it suits the comparative prices better than 
any other theory, and if that ratio can by the numismatic evidence be 
made practically certain or even only probable, no difficulty is likely 
to be raised on account of the papyri. 

For the rate of discount on copper at this period the evidence consists 
of, first, the Zois papyri of Philometor's reign in which ya\K.os eis K$-V is 
interchanged with yaXnos ov aAAayT?, secondly, L. P. 62 [5] 17, probably 
belonging to the later part of the second century B. c., in which in the 
case of (DVCLL irpos \a\Kov KTOVO^OV (vid. sup.), just as in the case of the 
oil-monopoly during the third century, copper was accepted at par, but 
the discount on copper paid in the case of Trpos apyvpiov <avai, or o>vai 
which ought to be paid in silver, is lodr. 2\ obols for every mina ; in 
other words no dr. i\ in copper were worth 100 in silver. The rate 
therefore was approximately 10 per cent, at this period, as it had been in 
the third century. The explanation of this fact which, since silver was 
much scarcer in the second century, is at first sight remarkable is 
afforded by the silver coins. In a country like Egypt with a double 
currency, silver and copper, exchanging at practically the market value, 
for it is incredible that Philadelphus would have permitted large 
payments of taxes in copper at its nominal value unless that nominal 
value approximately represented the real value of copper there were, 
when silver tended, as it did soon after Philadelphus' time, to become 
scarce, three alternatives before the Ptolemies. Either they might 
alter the rate of exchange between silver and copper, or they might 
diminish the weight of the silver coins to meet the appreciation of silver, 
or they might meet it by debasing the silver coinage. That the 
Ptolemies did not adopt the first course, is shown by the fact that 
copper still in the second century exchanged at the same rate, either 


at par or at a small discount, with silver, and that there is no alteration 
of normal weights in the copper coins. Possibly their policy in not 
adopting that course was sound ; for-the constant alterations of the rate 
of exchange, which would have been necessary to keep the two metals at 
their market value, might have been more fatal to all business transactions 
than either of the other two courses. Nor did they choose, as the 
Rhodians under similar circumstances chose, to diminish the weight 
of the silver coins, keeping the metal pure ; but, as the silver of the 
later Ptolemies shows, they preferred to debase their silver, probably 
to an extent which, while nominally keeping the same rate of exchange 
as before, would alter the real ratio between silver and copper to the 
level of the ratio of the two metals in the open market. Therefore, 
any particular weight of copper coins nominally continued in the second 
century to exchange against the same amount of silver as that against 
which it had exchanged in the third century. But the real silver 
in the 'silver' coins of the later Ptolemies continued to diminish, 
until by the reign of Auletes the metal had become for the most part 

To sum up the results which have been reached by the aid of 
the documentary evidence, the dividing line in the history of Ptolemaic 
coinage is the adoption of the copper standard at the very beginning of 
Epiphanes' reign, perhaps at the end of Philopator's, side by side with 
the silver standard which it never altogether superseded. In fact the 
debased silver of the later Ptolemies is so common that it must have 
played a much larger part than can be concluded from the papyri, and 
it may well be doubted not only how far the recorded payments on the 
silver standard in the third century were actually made in silver, but 
also how far the recorded payments in copper drachmae during the 
second were actually made in copper. In many respects however the 
change to a copper standard seems to have made little difference. As 
far back as Philadelphus' reign copper was used in the payment of large 
sums in official as well as in private transactions, sometimes at par, 
sometimes at a discount of about 10 per cent. In the second century, 
as the history of the airo^oipa proves (see [37] 19 note), payments were 
made more frequently in copper, but the rate of discount was apparently 
still about the same and there is nothing to show that the rate of 
exchange had altered. 


Of the three questions propounded at the beginning of this essay, the 
papyri and ostraca have given an answer to the second, and this answer 
has been verified by the silver coins ; with regard to the first, the normal 
ratio between silver and copper drachmae in the third century B.C. is 
known, and there is a certain presumption, though not yet a strong one, 
in favour of the exchange ratio of 1 20 : i between silver and copper 
drachmae in the second century. The third question has necessarily 
been left unsolved, except in so far that there is no longer any reason for 
separating the two parts of it, since the large payments of copper made 
to the government show that the ratio between silver and copper as 
metals must have closely approximated to their ratio as coins. 

5. The evidence of the copper coins. 

The copper coins are discussed by M. Revillout in Lettres, pp. 112- 
1 24, where he makes a classification and table of weights, both of which 
are, as I shall show, disfigured by the most astonishing blunders. These 
pages are reprinted practically without alteration from his articles in the 
Rev. egypt., though the subject had in the meantime been revolutionized 
by the appearance of Mr. Poole's Catalogue of Ptolemaic coins in the 
British Museum. 

As I have already said, it is necessary to have some theory of the 
rate of exchange between silver and copper drachmae before we attempt 
to argue from the weights. If it were possible to say at once that any 
particular coin was the copper obol, since the normal rate of exchange 
in the third century between drachmae paid in silver and drachmae 
paid in copper was par, it would be equally possible to obtain the 
ultimate ratio between an equal weight of silver and copper in the third 
century, and the knowledge of this would of course be of great service in 
deciding both the ratio of exchange and the ultimate ratio between silver 
and copper in the second century. But it is impossible to tell so easily 
what coin the copper obol was. On the other hand, if it can be dis- 
covered with how many copper drachmae the obol was identical, and 
how much the copper drachma weighed, the question of the ultimate 
ratio can be solved for both centuries at once. It is therefore necessary 
in order to reach the ultimate ratio between silver and copper even in 


the third century, to overcome the old difficulty of the rate of exchange 
between silver and copper drachmae in the second, and if that can be 
done, it will also be possible to explain the ultimate ratio in the second 
century B.C. 

But at this point there are some general considerations to be taken 
into account. First, to quote Mr. Poole (Catal. Intr. p. xiii), 'No series 
of coins struck by the successors of Alexander is more difficult to class 
than that of the Ptolemies.' And if the difficulty of classifying the gold 
and silver coins is great, that of classifying the copper is far greater 
owing to the increased rarity of dated copper coins, the uncertainty 
attaching to the name of each denomination, and the frequent devia- 
tions, whatever theory be adopted, from the normal standard of weights. 
The time is never likely to come when every issue of copper coins can 
be assigned to its correct reign, or when at any rate the smaller copper 
coins can be assigned with certainty to their correct denominations. 
Under these circumstances, since finality is unattainable, the best theory 
will be that to which there are fewest objections. 

Secondly, since the only numismatist of the first rank who has 
undertaken to weigh and systematize the copper coins is Mr. Poole, it 
is absolutely necessary for any one who is not a numismatist to base 
his explanations upon the facts as Mr. Poole records them, nor are 
conclusions likely to be of much value, if they are irreconcilable with 
Mr. Poole's. 

If the classification of the coinage according to weights is a task of 
extreme difficulty, the copper coinage of the Ptolemies has nevertheless 
two great advantages. It was at any rate from the time of Philadelphus, 
as I have pointed out, in no sense a token coinage. The smallness of 
the discount and the fact that the government even in the time when 
silver was plentiful sometimes accepted copper at par are conclusive 
evidence that the nominal ratio of copper to silver approximately 
coincided with the market ratio of the two metals. It would obviously 
be a vain task to attempt from a consideration of the weight and 
exchange value of a shilling to deduce the ratio of value between silver 
and gold as metals at the present day. But with the coinage of the 
Ptolemies it is certain that the ultimate ratio is somehow expressed by 
the coins if they can be looked at in the right way ; and there is no 
question of searching after a chimera. Secondly, a general consideration 



of the copper coins without adopting any particular theory of the normal 
standard shows, as Mr. Poole remarks, that the change from the silver to 
a copper standard in the reign of Epiphanes does not seem to have been 
accompanied by an alteration of the normal standard of weights. The 
names of the different denominations altered, but the normal weights 
did not. There are great irregularities after the reign of Epiphanes as 
there were before, but they are confined within the same limits, and 
therefore an explanation of the normal weights and the names of the 
denominations for one period will equally serve as an explanation for 
the other. At the same time the normal weights primarily represent 
the obol and its subdivisions to which the copper drachmae of the later 
period were equated, and a theory of the normal weights can only be 
accepted if it explains the origin of the subdivisions of the obol ; on the 
other hand the ratio of exchange adopted in the reign of Epiphanes is 
likely to have been such that the new copper drachmae would accommo- 
date themselves to the fractions of the obol. 

With regard to the copper obol, though nothing can be deduced 
from its name concerning its weight, there are two important points to 
be considered. The fact that the obol is spoken of as the typical copper 
coin, and still more the absence of any silver coin, at any rate after the 
reign of Soter, which represented an obol, make it certain that one 
denomination of the coins in Mr. Poolers table is the obol of which the 
lower denominations are subdivisions. Secondly, it is known that the 
Greek subdivisions of the obol in Egypt were chalci or eighths, as at 
Athens, cf. Pap. Biting. 1. c. line 9, SixaXKoi/, &c. Therefore any satis- 
factory theory of the normal weights of the obol must show that the 
coin which is assumed to be the obol, was divided into eighths at any 
rate approximately ; and similarly no theory of the equivalence of 
the obol in copper drachmae can be accepted, if the fractions which 
result are unintelligible. The exchange ratio must be such that the 
coins representing the fractions of the obol can be converted conveniently 
into copper drachmae. 

Next, as to the names of the copper coins in the second century ; in 
Greek they are called drachmae, in demotic ' argentei,' subdivided into 
5 shekels and 10 kati or didrachms, the kati being also T V of the 
uten, with which M. Revillout naturally identifies the argenteus, speaking 
frequently of the ' argenteus-outen.' The names therefore of the copper 


coins arc the same as the names of the silver coins, and as the names 
' drachma ' and ' kati ' connote weights, there is good reason for assuming 
that the coins which approximately weighed a drachma or a kati were 
the copper drachmae and the copper kati. 

But what were the weights connoted by the terms 'drachma' and 
1 kati ' in Egypt ? For this it is necessary to consider the history of the 
silver coinage about which there is no doubt. Soter at first issued silver 
on the Attic standard, according to which the drachma weighed 67-5 
grains, then adopted the Rhodian with a normal drachma of 60 grains, 
and finally adopted the Phoenician with a normal drachma of 56 grains, 
which standard was maintained by all his successors. Leaving the Rhodian 
drachma which is intermediate out of account, the approximate limits at 
each end are 67-5 and 56 as the weight of the copper drachma. Turning 
to the demotic, in so far as a kati is the translation of a Greek didrachm, 
it gives no new information, but it must be remembered that being the 
tenth of an ' argcnteus-outen,' and the uten being an ancient Egyptian 
weight of very nearly 1400 grains, the kati also had a definite weight of 
its own, 140 grains, which, as it was equated to the didrachm, would give 
a copper drachma of 70 grains. On the other hand, it will be objected, 
have I any right to invent a fictitious copper drachma of which there is 
no instance in Greek ? Is not this to explain the Greek coinage in the 
light of the demotic, a course which I have already frequently con- 
demned ? My answer is that in the first place 67-5 was but the approxi- 
mate limit, and that no less an authority than Mr. Poole (Catal. Intr. 
p. xci) remarks that the difference between the Attic and the Egyptian 
standard ' is too small to be of consequence in the comparison (of the 
coins), considering the irregularity with which the copper money was 
struck.' Any series of coins which points to a normal weight of 67-5 
can also be explained by a normal weight of 70. Therefore the Attic 
and Egyptian standards are for the present purpose identical, and the 
' fictitious drachma ' is nothing else than the Attic. 

But still it may be objected that, as the Greek and the Egyptian 
standards practically coincided, it was the Egyptian system which was 
equated to the Greek, not vice versa, and that in speaking of the normal 
weights I ought to keep to the Greek. Here however a distinction must 
be drawn. There is all the difference in the world between explaining 
technical phrases or names of coins by the demotic instead of by the 

Ff 2 


Greek, and on the other hand arguing that the copper coins made in 
Greek mints by Greeks and with Greek names may nevertheless have 
been issued on an Egyptian standard to which the Greek was equated. 
That it would be as inconsistent as it would be absurd to explain the 
silver coins on any theory of an Egyptian standard, is obvious, for 
the silver coins were clearly issued on Greek standards, to which the 
Egyptian standard was equated. But though a conquering race 
naturally imposes its own silver standard on the conquered, there are 
numerous cases, as in South Italy and Sicily, in which the conquerors 
have adopted the copper standard of the conquered and equated it with 
their own money. Moreover the elaborate system of copper coinage 
of the Ptolemies is peculiar to Egypt and quite foreign to the rest 
of the Hellenistic world, while on the other hand copper had long been 
used in Egypt as a standard of value. In fact, if the question had to 
be decided only on a priori grounds, the balance of probability would 
be rather in favour of an Egyptian origin. But it is sufficient for 
my present purpose to have vindicated the consistency of holding that 
besides the kati which are equivalents of Greek weights, account must 
be taken of the true Egyptian weight of the kati, although, as I have 
said, for practical purposes a coin of 70 grains is not to be dis- 
tinguished from the Attic drachma. 

How does this bear on the ratio of exchange between silver and 
copper drachmae ? In the first place, if it is granted that the copper 
drachma weighs approximately the same as the Phoenician or the 
Attic drachma, it can be shown that any ratio of exchange higher 
than 1 20: i is unsatisfactory if not impossible; e.g. if it were 180 to 
i, 30 copper drachmae would be equal to the obol ; but thirty times 
the weight even of the Phoenician drachma would result in a coin 
much heavier than any quoted in Mr. Poole's table, and, as has been 
shown, the obol is represented somewhere in the extant copper coins ; 
therefore this ratio will not do. In fact, as the heaviest copper coin 
is a little over 1400 grains, any ratio of exchange over 150 is quite 
impossible on the same grounds. This ratio however, which assigns 
25 copper drachmae to the obol, may be dismissed on the ground that 
it involves a very inconvenient number, 3! copper drachmae for the 
chalcus, which will cause infinite confusion. But it is unnecessary to 
go through all the unsatisfactory ratios in detail. The number of 


copper drachmae in an obol cannot exceed twenty-four ; on the other 
hand it cannot be less than ten, which would give a ratio of sixty, 
for under any circumstances a ratio below 60 : i is too low to account 
for the high figures in copper drachmae in the papyri ; twenty-four 
and ten are therefore the two possible extremes. Of the intermediate 
numbers all the odd ones may be struck out, as they would lead at 
once to impossible fractions in copper drachmae as the equivalents of 
chalci, nor will twenty-two, eighteen, or fourteen suit for the same 
reason. There remain twenty-four, twenty, sixteen, twelve, and ten. 

I have proceeded so far on general grounds without assuming even 
the normal weights of any particular coins, much less the relation of 
any one supposed denomination to any other, but merely showing that 
a number of ratios failed at the outset to fulfil the requirements which 
any satisfactory solution must have fulfilled, before it is worth while 
to apply the consequences of the ratio to the coins themselves ; but 
it is hardly necessary to point out that a theory which starts with 
difficulties at the outset, cannot possibly evercome the obstacles which 
any theory, however simple or easy at the beginning, is bound eventually 
to encounter. In order to reduce the possible ratios of exchange on 
numismatical grounds to a still smaller number, it would be necessary 
to come to an understanding, if not about the supposed approximate 
normal weights, at any rate about the relation which a higher series 
bears to a lower one. But without prejudging the answers to these 
questions, there is one fact which is certain about the subdivisions of 
the Ptolemaic coins, and indeed it is the explanation of it which is 
the key to the whole problem. 

Whatever theory be adopted as to the number of copper drachmae 
in an obol, and whatever coin be therefore selected as the obol, the 
subdivisions of it are not only in the series i, i, 4, which fractions it 
is absolutely necessary to find in the coins, as the obol is known to 
have been divided into these fractions. Intermediate between these 
fractions comes another series, and it is chiefly by its answer to the 
questions, first what was this series both in terms of fractions of the 
obol and of copper drachmae, and secondly, why was there this second 
series, that a theory of Ptolemaic coinage stands or falls. On Mr. 
Poole's theory that the normal weight of the highest copper coins was 
20 Attic drachmae, he obtains as subdivisions 10, 8, 5, 4, aj, 2, 1$, i, 


(I leave out of account the smaller denominations which cannot be fixed 
independently of the larger), or, regarded as fractions of unity, \, , i, , 
i> T V> A> 50- It i s obvious that by identifying 20 Attic drachmae with 
the copper obol, which gives an exchange ratio of I : 120, the fractions 
of the obol which are wanted will be obtained, and equally, if 10 Attic 
drachmae be identified with the obol ; for the difference between the 
denomination of the small coin, which Mr. Poole supposes to be i, 
i. e 4 3 ^, and the denomination of i-J-, i.e. on a theory of 60: i, & obol, 
is so trifling that it can be neglected. But there will also be a series 
f> T> yV> ^V> which, though they cannot be finally proved until the 
explanation of them is found, are at any rate convenient fractions of 
the obol and can at once be converted into copper drachmae without 
any difficulty. But these advantages, which are shared equally by the 
exchange ratio of 120 : i or 60 : i, the copper drachma being in both cases 
on the Attic standard, are not obtained by any of the ratios, according 
to which 24, 1 6, or 12 copper drachmae are equal to the obol, whatever 
normal weight of the copper drachma be assumed within the limits 
of 70-56 grains mentioned above. These three ratios of exchange all 
lead to inconvenient fractions both as divisions of the obol and as 
copper drachmae. Practically the question is ultimately narrowed 
down to the choice between 120:1 and 60 : i. Further than that the 
evidence of the Ptolemaic coins cannot go, for if the coins can be 
explained on the theory of the one ratio, they can equally well be 
explained by the other, since the normal weights would remain the 
same, and the only difference would be that the denominations of the 
various fractions would on the theory of 60 : i be twice what they are 
on the theory of 120:1. But the theory of 120:1 is, Mr Gardner 
tells me, on general grounds of numismatics, preferable to the other 
theory, because the exchange ratio of 1 20 : i leads, if the copper drachma 
is on the Attic standard, as Mr. Poole supposes, and his classification 
of the coinage is satisfactory, to a ratio of 143* : i between the normal 
weights of an equivalent amount of silver and copper, and even on 
M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the copper coinage 
to a ratio of 120 : i, and the analogy of other countries, e.g. Sicily and 
Rome, is in favour of a ratio over 100 in preference to one below. 

Like the papyri therefore the coins on the whole point to the 
exchange ratio of 120: i, and as they practically narrow the question 

APPENDIX 111. 223 

down to a ratio of 120 or 60, while the former ratio suits the prices 
found in the papyri much the better of the two, there is not much 
doubt that the exchange ratio is 120: i ; and if so the continuation of 
the demotic formula 24 = T * ff in the period when obols had given 
way to pieces of 20 copper drachmae or 'argenteus-outens' is easily 

That all these arguments for the exchange ratio of 120:1 leave 
much to be desired is recognized by no one more fully than myself; 
but it would be worse than useless to blind oneself to the fact that 
conclusive evidence for that ratio does not yet exist, though the question 
will probably some day be solved by an instance of the conversion 
of copper drachmae in the second century B.C. into silver, similar to 
the instances in App. ii (5) for the third. 

It has hitherto been argued that the exchange ratio of 120:1, 
according to which the obol was equivalent to 20 copper drachmae 
on the Attic standard, produces a satisfactory solution for the initial 
difficulties which were fatal to the other ratios. But in order to place 
on an approximately firm basis the ratio of exchange, together with 
the ratio of weights between an equivalent amount of silver and copper, 
which follows from the other ratio provided that the weight of a copper 
drachma be discoverable, it is necessary both to show that, on the 
assumption that the ratio of exchange was 120:1 and the normal 
weight of the drachma was the Attic, the coins can be classified into 
suitable subdivisions both of the obol and of 20 copper drachmae, and 
to provide an explanation for the double series of fractions. Here if 
I wished I could stop, and, ignoring the table of weights proposed by 
M. Revillout, whose classification and theory of normal weights are 
quite different from Mr. Poole's, settle the questions at issue by an 
appeal to the authority of the first numismatist on the subject. Seeing 
that Mr. Poole has adopted the theory that the normal weights of 
the copper coins were on the Attic standard, and that the normal 
weight of the largest copper coins was 20 drachmae, which are on 
the theory of an exchange ratio of 120:1 the obol, it will naturally 
be asked, ' What is the use of going further? Is not Mr. Poole's verdict 
sufficient ? and even if it is not, how can you who are not a numismatist 
expect to strengthen it?' The fact that Mr. Poole, having for a short 
time accepted M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the 


weights, deliberately rejected it in favour of another explanation before 
publishing his Catalogue is a sufficiently strong condemnation of 
M. Revillout's theory, and had M. Revillout in his recent re-issue of 
the Lettres renounced his classification, there would have been no 
necessity for my discussing a superseded system. But as M. Revillout, 
who has committed in his classification, as I shall show, blunders which 
would have been incredible if he had not made them, has made no 
alterations in his theory of the weights, and dismisses the condemnation 
of his theory by the first authority on the subject with the remark, 
' Maintenant M. Poole en est revenu a son ancienne erreur qu'il a encore 
essaye" de defendre dans son catalogue,' it is necessary to put an end 
to possible misconceptions, and to show on the one hand how and 
why Mr. Poole's conclusions based on recorded facts solve the numerous 
difficulties, and on the other how and why the generalizations of 
M. Revillout break down. I therefore proceed to a more or less 
detailed examination of M. Revillout's theory and that of Mr. Poole, 
into which I wish, though with considerable hesitation, to introduce 
a few unimportant modifications ; and will only preface my remarks 
by repeating that until a greater authority on Ptolemaic coins than 
Mr. Poole shall arise, the question has been long ago settled, at any rate 
for those who are not numismatists, and that if I have to spend my 
readers' time in criticizing the revival of an obsolete theory, it is not 
I who am to blame. 

6. M. Revillout's theory of the Phoenician standard of the 

copper coinage. 

M. Revillout, starting with the exchange ratio of 120 : i, supposes 
that the 20 copper drachmae, or a copper ' argenteus-outen,' or an 
obol on the silver standard, weighed the same as 20 silver drachmae 
on the Phoenician standard which was in use for gold and silver 
from the end of Soter's reign onwards. 

Having obtained the weights of a large number of copper coins, 
he arranges them according to the following table of ' principales series,' 
in which, as the differences between the coins are clearer when the 
weights are expressed in grains than when expressed in grammes and 
in Mr. Poole's table the weights are given in grains, I have converted 


22 = 

M. Rcvillout's weights into their nearest English equivalents. It may 
first be stated that M. Revillout takes 207-223 grs. as the average 
weight of the actual silver tetradrachms, but it is the higher extreme 
which is the normal weight, according to Mr. Poole. 

Supposed highest 
normal weight. 

1668 grains 











Denomination in 

Actual weight. 

in silver. 

copper dr. 

i i obol 


1580 grains 

1} obol 






1 obol 



| obol 



i obol 



(| obol) 



| obol 



I obol 



(i obol) 







Mr obol) 
(A obol) 
( 8 V obol) 


104-1 II 




The advantages of this classification, provided that it represents the 
facts, are obvious. In the first place it will be observed that the actual 
weights of all the coins have an obliging method of stopping short at 
the precise point where, on M. Revillout's theory of their highest normal 
weights, they ought to stop. Secondly, the symmetry of the classifica- 
tion is perfect. On the one hand the coins representing fractions of the 
obol which are enclosed in brackets occur only in the period after 
copper drachmae were instituted, and those representing copper drachmae 
enclosed in brackets occur only before the period of copper drachmae. 
The only fractions of the obol are therefore the coins divided according 
to eighths or chalci, the ordinary Greek fractions of the obol, and 
the subdivisions of the 20 drachmae piece give only round numbers. 
There are no fractions which ought to be there and are not, still less 
any that ought not to be there but are. Could there be a more con- 
vincing proof of M. Revillout's theory that until the reign of Philopator 


copper was ' only for the Greeks,' and that the coins represent only the 
obol and its normal fractions, and on the other hand that the copper 
drachmae, implying the extensive use of copper, were the invention of 
Philopator ? 

But what are the facts ? On this point M. Revillout does not afford 
any help. The only approach towards a fact in his discussion of the 
weights (Lettres, pp. 1 13-117) is the statement that an indefinite number 
of coins weigh 102 grammes, unless it be a quotation from Mommsen 
about the weight of coin mentioned by Finder. In all the other cases 
he gives generalizations about the ' limits ' within which the coins fell ; 
sometimes he states how many coins fell within those ' limits,' though 
generally he does not do even that. But on the actual weights of actual 
coins, from which alone his theory could be tested, he is silent. Nothing 
is said of their condition, a knowledge of which is the first essential 
before any reliance can be placed on their weights ; nothing of their 
provenance, though, as Mr. Poole shows, the copper coinage of the 
Cyrenaica and Cyprus had distinct features of its own, which differentiate 
it from the coinage of Egypt and Phoenicia and make it at least 
questionable how far the weights of coins from the Cyrenaica and 
Cyprus can afford a solution of Egyptian coinage ; and with regard 
to the dates he gives only the crude division between coins belonging 
to the period before Philopator and coins belonging to the period after. 
Lastly, M. Revillout's theory is confessedly incomplete, for he gives us 
only generalizations about ' les principales series' (Lettres, p. 113). 

His generalizations must therefore be tested by the recorded weights 
of the coins as they are found in Mr. Poole's table. Here of course 
reference is always made to the particular coins, whether the weight 
given represents the average of a particular number, or whether it is 
based on single coins. The coins whose weights are given were selected 
on account of their excellent condition (Catal. Introd., p. xci), and every 
available information about their dates and provenances is placed 
before the reader. Lastly, Mr. Poole gives not only the principal series 
but the exceptional weights which he finds, however difficult they may 
be to reconcile with the classification which he proposes. And if it 
be objected that this contrast is unfair to M. Revillout and that it 
is unreasonable to expect a precise classification from any one who 
is not a trained numismatist, my answer is that M. Revillout, by the 


rcpublication of his classification unaltered in spite of Mr. Poole's 
Catalogue, has still chosen to appeal in support of his theory to the 
coins, and to the coins he must go. 

On comparing the facts recorded by Mr. Poole with the general- 
izations of M. Revillout four inconsistencies attract attention: (i) that 
the coins which, according to M. Revillout, not only ought to occur 
but do occur only in the first period, nevertheless occur in the second, 
and vice versa ; (2) that some series of coins which M. Revillout 
includes in his ' principales series ' do not occur in Mr. Poole's table 
at all ; (3) that other coins which are extremely common do not occur 
in M. Revillout's table ; (4) that the actual coins by no means stop 
short at the exact point where, on M. Revillout's theory, their normal 
weights stop short. I will first take the chief instances of each incon- 
sistency and then discuss their combined effect upon M. Revillout's 

The J \ obol of M. Revillout does not occur in Mr. Poole's table. 
How many examples M. Revillout had before him he does not say, but 
the coin must be extremely rare, since it is not represented in the 
collection of the British Museum. The actual weights of the i] obol 
are, according to M. Revillout, 1280-1390. There are however coins 
of 1445 and 1413, the first being the average weight of seven Egyptian 
coins assigned by Mr. Poole to Ptolemy Philadelphus. M. Revillout's 
| obol does not appear in the British Museum collection, the only coin 
approaching it being a Phoenician coin of 752 grains belonging to 
Euergetes I ; but it is very difficult to suppose that this is an example of 
a series whose normal weight rises to 834 grains. The obol is not, as 
M. Revillout supposes, confined to the first three Ptolemies. Egyptian 
coins of 684 and 656 grains occur in the reigns of Epiphanes and 
Philometor. Therefore, on M. Revillout's theory of its denomination 
in silver, it must have then been equivalent to 12$ copper drachmae. 
Next, the coin whose actual weight, according to M. Revillout, is 
414-445 grains and denomination 8 copper drachmae is not found in 
Mr. Poole's table, any more than his supposed coin of 387-417 or $ obol. 
On the other hand, there is an Egyptian coin belonging to Philopator 
which weighs 486, and there is a very large series of coins of somewhat 
varying weights (325, 368, 332, 323, 330, 316, 354, 316, 354, 370), 
enjoying the sole distinction in Mr. Poole's list of being assigned to 



every reign from Soter I to Soter II, not one of which is found in 
M. Revillout's list. M. Revillout's brilliant imagination has at this 
point soared so completely out of the region of facts that it is difficult 
to bring him back to earth at all. 

First as to the supposed coins representing 8 copper drachmae and 
obol; even admitting their existence, it will be noticed that their actual 
weights, according to M. Revillout, overlap each other, and as numerous 
examples show that M. Revillout's assignment of certain coins to the 
period before Philopator and certain coins to the period after is quite 
invalid, he has clearly made two series out of one. M. Revillout may 
adopt whichever denomination suits him best ; both he cannot have. 
But it is worth while to point out that the one denomination will give 
him an inconvenient fraction of the obol, the other an inconvenient 
fraction of the copper drachma, and that whichever denomination he 
adopts the weights of the other one will be a strong argument against 
his theory of the normal weight of the denomination which he has 
adopted being correct ; and that if his theory of the normal weights will 
not suit the coins, it is not the coins which can be ignored. Secondly, 
to extricate M. Revillout from the inevitable consequences of his remark- 
able blunder in omitting from his list of ' principales series ' the very 
commonest series of Ptolemaic coins is not my affair. Nevertheless, the 
least havoc is wrought in his system by supposing what is from the 
weights the most probable solution - that this series which he has 
omitted represents a normal weight which is half of that series which 
on M. Revillout's theory is f obol. The omitted series then is 
T 5 F obol or 6| copper drachmae. That both these fractions are highly 
unsatisfactory, and in fact unintelligible, is of course obvious, but some 
denomination has to be found for these coins between the denominations 
which on M. Revillout's theory are f obol and \ obol, and I have been 
unable to find any better explanation than that which I have suggested. 

M. Revillout's \ obol may perhaps pass, although the coins do not 
suit it by any means so much as from his statement of their actual weight 
would be supposed, as the majority of those coins which can be 
assigned to this denomination have lower weights than 258 grains. The 
next two denominations present insuperable difficulties.- The coins 
whose actual weight is from 207-223 grains are represented in Mr. 
Poole's table by one series whose average weight is 214, but they all 

APPENDIX 111. 229 

come from Cyprus, and arc therefore a very slender foundation for 
founding a theory of the normal weight of Egyptian coins; and it is 
far more probable that these coins are an exceptionally light issue of 
the scries which M. Rcvillout makes his | obol. Between this doubtful 
denomination of 4 copper drachmae weighing 207-223 and his next 
denomination of \ obol weighing 129-139 grains, M. Revillout has 
again committed the extraordinary mistake of omitting from his ' prin- 
cipales series ' a whole series of extremely common coins. From 
Euergetes I's reign five coins from Phoenicia and four from Egypt have 
an average weight of 168 grains, while there are two examples of iKo 
and 157 ; 171 is the average weight of three coins from Egypt belonging 
to Philopator's reign, 170 the average of six from Cyprus belonging to 
Epiphanes, and coins ranging from 145-170 are common in the reigns 
of Philometor, Euergetes II, and Soter II with various provenances. 
The extreme commonness of this series was apparently sufficient to 
secure its rejection from M. Revillout's list of ' principales series,' 
amongst which are frequently found coins whose very existence may be 
doubted, and which must in any case, since they are not found in the 
magnificent collection of the British Museum, be extremely rare. But 
as this series exists in great abundance, a place has somehow to be 
found for it in M. Revillout's system, though the stability of that 
ingenious fabric has already become so questionable that a fresh shock 
is likely to prove fatal to it altogether. But the easiest, which is also 
the most probable, theory is to suppose a coin whose denomination is 
half that coin equivalent to 3 V obol or 6J copper drachmae of which 
the insertion in M. Revillout's system was found to be necessary. This 
series therefore will be -$ obol or 3$ copper drachmae, which is a more 
inconvenient fraction than ever. 

Next to his | obol, which, it may be noticed, is much commoner in 
the period after Philopator than before and therefore must be also 
2\ copper drachmae, M. Revillout places his copper didrachm of 
104-111 grains. As this coin occurs in Ptolemy Ill's reign it must 
then have been ^ obol. Next comes his T \ obol, which may pass, 
though whether it can be assigned only to the period before Philopator 
rests on the admissibility or the reverse of coins weighing 67 grains 
from Cyprus in the reign of Philometor, and a similar kind of difficulty 
exists concerning the occurrence of his copper drachma before Philo- 


pator's reign, when it would be ^ obol. M. Revillout has by this time 
so effectually led his readers to expect the omission of a more than 
usually common series in his table, that it is not surprising to find no 
mention in it of a number of very common coins weighing 40, 45, 39, 40, 
46, 40, 38, 32, 35, 33, 30 grains of various dates and provenances. The 
simplest explanation of them on his theory is to suppose that most, if 
not all, are half of either his copper didrachm or his r \ obol, though 
either course is practically fatal to supposing that his theory of their 
normal weights can be correct, and either course involves him in a still 
more inconvenient fraction, both of the obol and of the copper drachma, 
than those which have already been found to be necessary. 

The denominations of the smaller coins are, on any theory, so 
doubtful that it is not worth while to discuss them, beyond pointing out 
the fact that the weight which, on M. Revillout's theory, represents the 
-J- copper drachma has not yet been found in coins which can certainly 
be ascribed to Egypt or Phoenicia, and that the period in which the 
coin occurs is precisely that period in which M. Revillout says that it 
does not. 

To sum up the leading objections to M. Revillout's classification, in 
the first place the only chronological determination which he gives is 
not only misleading but incorrect, and he has therefore found himself 
involved in a number of fractions both of the obol and of copper 
drachmae which are more or less inconvenient and improbable. If 
M. Revillout can show on numismatical grounds why the coins, which 
Mr. Poole assigned both to the period before Philopator and to the period 
after, in reality belong to either one period or the other, I am ready to 
accept his division. But if, as seems more probable, his chief, perhaps 
his only, reason for assigning the coins to one period or the other was 
that such a division was necessary for his theory, while giving ready 
credence to this necessity, I cannot treat seriously a division that so 
palpably assumes the whole point which it was required to prove. 
Secondly, the weights of the actual coins are, to postpone other objec- 
tions, very much more irregular than M. Revillout allows. So far from 
the actual weights of most coins corresponding with M. Revillout's sup- 
posed normal weights, there are considerable variations both above and 
below. If M. Revillout should argue that these irregular coins are the 
exception, my answer is that by suppressing their weights and their 

APPENDIX 111. 231 

numbers compared with those which he says are the ' principales series,' 
he begs the whole question at issue, and moreover, though the precise 
condition of admission into M. Revillout's ' principales series' must 
remain a matter of conjecture, it at any rate had little to do with the 
commonness of the scries. 

Thirdly, in order to obtain any approach to a satisfactory classifica- 
tion which will give the ordinary fractions of the obol and the 
intelligible fractions of 20 copper drachmae, M. Revillout's theory rests 
on several scries of coins which are not found in Mr. Poole's table. 
I do not intend here to discuss the question whether any coin so rare 
that it is not represented in the table of copper coins in the British 
Museum can be made to serve as one of M. Revillout's ' principales 
series.' When it is known where these coins are, what is their number, 
what their condition, what their precise weight, what their probable date, 
and what their probable provenance, it will be time to discuss them as 
evidence for or against M. Revillout's and Mr. Poole's theories. But 
M. Revillout has by the astonishing omissions from his classification 
completely given away his case, and forfeited any right to expect the 
world to accept his generalizations about the weights of coins, whose 
very existence he has not yet proved. 

All the faults of M. Revillout's system however, amply sufficient 
though they are to show its powerlcssness to overcome the difficulties 
with which every system has to contend, pale into insignificance beside 
his extraordinary mistake, in still ignoring in his classification of ' les 
principales series' three series of coins, which were not only three of the 
very commonest scries, but were absolutely fatal to the symmetry, and 
therefore to the correctness, of his system. 

Further comment on M. Revillout's classification is needless, since 
the internal evidence, which is by far the most important, has sufficiently 
condemned it. But for the sake of completeness I will add what 
appears to be a strong external argument against it. 

M. Revillout's theory supposes the identity of weight between 
20 copper drachmae or one copper ' argenteus-outen,' and 20 silver 
drachmae or one silver ' argenteus-outen,' both on the Phoenician 
standard. At first sight there would seem to be no difficulty in sup- 
posing that, as the silver ' argenteus-outen ' on the Phoenician standard 
was called an argenteus, although it only weighed \ of the real utcn, so 


the copper ' argenteus-outen ' might weigh only | of the real utcn. There 
is however an essential difference between the two cases, which becomes 
apparent as soon as the origin of the term ' argenteus,' i. e. uten, as the 
equivalent of 20 silver drachmae is considered. When Soter began to 
coin silver, his first tetradrachms were, as has been stated, on the Attic 
standard and their normal weight 270 grs. The difference between 20 
silver drachmae and the argenteus-outen of about 1400 grs. is, as M. Re- 
villout himself has occasion to point out, too trifling to be considered. 
When the weight of the silver coins was reduced to the Phoenician 
standard, it was natural that the demotic names continued to be used, 
although the divergence in weight between the real uten and the coins 
called argentei had become serious. 

But this analogy does not hold good for the copper argentei. Here 
there is no question of a coin which once approximately weighed an 
uten and, though diminished in weight, still represented the same 
denomination, but rather of the adoption of new terms to express coins 
whose normal weights, as Mr. Poole remarks, had not diminished. More- 
over there is this difference that while in silver there never were two 
denominations issued simultaneously, one approximately weighing the 
uten the other not, in copper there were, according to M. Revillout's 
own theory, two series, one corresponding almost exactly to the real 
uten, and another weighing on the average 280 grains less. Yet on 
M. Revillout's theory it is the latter coin, not the former coin approxi- 
mating to the real uten, which in copper received the name ' argenteus ' 
or uten. It may be objected that the ' nouvel outen monetaire ' repre- 
senting | of the old uten had been for a hundred years in existence ; 
but this hardly alters the difficulty of supposing that one of the most 
conservative nations in the world, a nation whose conservatism is shown 
by nothing clearer than the fact of their preferring with regard to the 
silver coinage an approximately equivalent term in their own language 
to the official term used by their rulers, had in one hundred years so far 
forgotten their ancient and historic weights, that they applied the names 
of argenteus and kati not to classes of coins which were almost, perhaps 
actually, identical with them, but to another series of classes approxi- 
mating in weight much less closely to the real and historic weights. 

At any rate it will hardly be denied that a theory of the copper 
drachma which will make the normal weights of the various denomina- 


tions correspond closely, if not actually, to the literal meaning of the 
demotic names will possess a great advantage; and it is in fact such 
a theory of the copper drachma which Mr. Poole has adopted, though 
on the evidence of the coins themselves. 

.7. The theory of the Egyptian standard of the copper coinage. 

Mr. Poole in his Catalogue hesitates between the Egyptian and the 
Attic standard for the copper coins. On p. xxxvii he thinks it is prob- 
ably Egyptian, on p. xci he adopts the Attic in preference on the 
ground that ' the subdivisions would rather suggest the Attic system, and 
it is unlikely that an Egyptian one would have been forced on the 
inhabitants of Cyprus and the CyrenaYca.' But he proceeds to say 
' The difference is too small to be of consequence in the comparison, 
considering the irregularity with which the copper money was struck,' 
and concludes by referring the reader to M. Revillout's researches in 
the demotic papyri. In the light of the new information afforded 
by the Greek papyri discovered since 1883, the examination of M. Re- 
villout's speculations based on the demotic papyri has shown that 
Mr. Poole's estimate of their value was far too high ; and M. Revil- 
lout's classification of weights, to which I have been unable to find any 
reference in Mr. Poole's work except on p. xxxvii where he remarks 
that ' since M. Revillout's researches doubt has been cast on this 
hypothesis ' (that the copper coinage was on the Egyptian standard), 
has already been disposed of. The theory of the Egyptian standard has 
therefore to be decided by reference to the coins in accordance with the 
facts given in Mr. Poole's table and by general considerations, but 
without reference to M. Revillout's theories which cannot now affect it 
either for good or for evil. 

As Mr. Poole concedes that the difference in the normal weights of 
the denominations on the Attic and Egyptian standard is of practically 
no consequence, so that, as far as the coins are concerned, they will suit 
either theory, and as the latter standard is the one which I wish to 
propose as the theoretical standard of normal weights, I will first give 
a table of supposed normal weights, and then explain and, if I can, 
justify the slight modifications which I have ventured to introduce into 
Mr. Poole's system. It is not necessary here to give the actual weights, 




which the reader will find stated at length in Mr. Poole's table (Catal. 
p. xcii). 

Denomination Supposed 

in copper. normal weight. 

20 dr. = i uten 1400 grains 

16 i i 20 


in silver. 





4=1 shekel 


2=1 kati 








A tV 21-87 

*V i 17-5 

In so far as the denominations which I propose are taken direct from 
Mr. Poole's table, it is not necessary for me to justify them in detail. 
Mr. Poole considered them on the whole the most suitable, and that is 
sufficient. Difficulties and exceptions are of course numerous, as the 
reader will see by referring to Mr. Poole's table, and difficulties and 
exceptions there must be to every theory of a coinage so irregular. 
The question is which theory will explain the greatest number of 
coins with the greatest symmetry ; and it was because M. Revillout 
could only obtain any approach towards symmetry by ignoring the 
commonest coins, that his theory breaks down. Moreover, exceptions 
are of two kinds, those above a supposed normal weight and those below 
it, and of the two the first class is much the harder to explain. Im- 
poverishment of the Exchequer or frauds on the part of the Mint 
supply an explanation for the frequent issue of coins even far below the 
normal weights, and it is perhaps to causes which are the converse of 
these, to a stop in the appreciation of silver, coinciding with the 
appointment of a liberal director of the Mint, that issues of coins rising 
above the normal weights may be assigned. It must also be taken 
into account that coins often gain weight by oxidization as well as 


lose it. But the existence of coins above the supposed normal weight 
remains a permanent difficulty. It is therefore to some extent an 
advantage to place the normal weights as high as possible, since in 
that case there are fewer coins above them and more below; and this 
advantage, whatever it be worth, is gained by raising the supposed normal 
weights from the Attic to the Egyptian standard, and substituting 
a 20 drachma piece or uten of 1400 grains for Mr. Poole's 20 Attic 
drachmae of 1340. Moreover if it is supposed that 20 Attic drachmae 
were equated to the uten, this hypothesis perhaps helps to explain the 
variations in the weights of the coins which may have been issued 
now according to one system, now according to the other, in the different 

Mr. Poole considers the coins whose weights are 1023, Jo82, and 
1128 grains to be exceptionally light issues of the 20 drachma piece or 
obol. But though there are great irregularities in the weights of other 
denominations there are none so great as these, and I prefer therefore to 
suppose the existence of another denomination between the obol and 
the \ obol. As the copper coins have to be explained primarily as 
fractions of the obol, not as fractions of 20 copper drachmae, which were 
afterwards equated to the fractions of the obol the choice lies between 
\ and J. The second fraction is in some respects simpler, but its normal 
weight, 1050 grains, does not suit the coins so well as the normal weight 
of the other fraction Moreover, between the coin whose denomination 
is i obol or 10 drachmae and the coin whose denomination is ,V obol or 
a copper didrachm, Mr. Poole sees two scries alternating with each other, 
one \, \, i, the other f , |, T V. For the sake of symmetry therefore it is 
convenient to suppose a obol between the obol and the \ obol, and the 
difficulty of the fraction $ is not any greater than that of , \ t or T V 
I have already pointed out that this second series, , } t T Vi which is found 
alternating with the easily explicable series of i, }, , T V, causes the 
principal difficulty in Ptolemaic copper coins, and on this point the 
theory of the Egyptian standard seems to offer a solution. For since, 
as I have said, there are historical analogies for the case of a conquering 
race imposing its own silver coinage on the conquered, but retaining the 
pre-existing system of copper coinage, there is not much difficulty, if the 
theory of the Egyptian standard is correct, in supposing that these 
fractions of the obol, , f, f, f v , were issued because they were the 

H h 2 


fractions of the copper uten to which the Egyptians had from time 
immemorial been accustomed. But the advantage of this explanation, 
the value of which I leave to the consideration of numismatists, is of 
course shared by Mr. Poole's theory to practically the same degree, 
since whether the normal standard was Egyptian or Attic or both, the 
obol was at least as approximately identical in weight with the uten as 
was the silver ' argenteus outen ' with the 20 Attic drachmae of which 
in Soter's reign it was the equivalent. 

The fact seems to have been that there were two series of fractions, 
one for Greeks representing the normal fractions of the Attic obol, the 
other for Egyptians representing fractions of the uten. The Greek 
papyri naturally mention only chalci or the Greek fractions of the obol. 
With regard to the demotic names of the copper coins, it is for demotic 
scholars to decide whether the copper coins representing in weight the 
uten and its subdivisions, shekels and kati, were in the third century 
ever called utens, shekels and kati of copper, as they were called in the 
second, or whether they were treated only as fractions of the silver kati. 
In the latter case, it is probable that mentions of the Egyptian series of 
fractions f , |, T \ of the obol or ^, ^ y^ of the kati will be found in 
demotic accounts of the third century corresponding to 2 shekels, 
I shekel, and i kati, which are found in demotic papyri of the second. 

Between his didrachm of 135 grains and his drachma of 67-5 
Mr. Poole places a supposed i| drachma weighing 101-25, which would 
be 105 on the Egyptian standard. Both these normal weights are some- 
what high, for the actual coins weigh 100, 92-5, 85 Phoenicia: 80, 75 
Egypt: 85 Cyrenai'ca: 96 Phoen. : 79 Cyprus: 80 Eg.: 91 Cyren: 
70, 87 Cyr. I have therefore preferred to make the supposed normal 
weight of this series 87-5, i.e. half the coin weighing 175, and double the 
coin of which Mr. Poole considers the normal weight to be 45, while on 
my theory its normal weight is 43-75. These modifications which I 
have suggested have perhaps an advantage in making the denominations 
descend more regularly, and, provided that they will suit the coins, the 
fractions T \ and ^ bol are more convenient than / ff and -$. 

The next coin is on Mr. Poole's Attic standard drachma or ^ obol, 
and on mine / r obol or | copper drachma, the difference between our 
supposed normal weights for it being just over \ grain. But the fixing 
of all these small denominations below the drachma must remain largely 


a matter of conjecture, as even a slight irregularity of weight in the 
coins is sufficient to make it uncertain to what series it should be 
assigned. The important thing is to fix the larger denominations, 
and on all the essential points the theory of the Egyptian standard 
is perfectly consistent not only with Mr. Poole's facts, but with the 
conclusions which he draws from them. Whether the few slight 
modifications in his system suggested by an amateur like myself have any 
value is a question which I leave to the consideration of numismatists, 
who alone can decide it. But if my suggested improvements are found 
unsatisfactory, their rejection will only bring out into still clearer relief 
the authority attaching to the illustrious numismatist's own system and 
to his condemnation of M. Revillout's. 

There is one point which although already stated, will bear repetition, 
that the Ptolemaic copper coins must, if not in the order of time yet in 
the order of thought, be explained as fractions of the obol before they 
are explained as copper drachmae. My reason for insisting on this is 
that Mr. Poole in his list of supposed denominations was clearly to some 
extent influenced by M. Revillout's erroneous but generally accepted 
theoiy that copper played a very unimportant part in Egypt before 
Philopator and the period of copper drachmae. As Mr. Poole does 
not in his Catalogue commit himself to any theory of the exchange 
ratio, it was natural that he should look at the copper coins as multiples 
of the Attic drachma, since he makes no statement about the weight of 
a copper obol. But the coins were obols and fractions of obols long 
before they were copper drachmae, and though it is necessary for 
purposes of argument to begin with them as copper drachmae, it is 
as far back as the reign of Philadelphus that the true meaning of the 
weights is found in that equation of the obol with the uten of copper, 
which, following equally from Mr. Poole's theory of the Attic standard 
or mine of the Egyptian, appears to offer the least difficult, the most 
symmetrical, and the most satisfactory classification of the coins. 

This brings me to the last question to be considered, the origin of the 
copper coinage. For the reign of Soter there are only a few demotic 
papyri containing no mention of copper, and a certain number of copper 
coins, which, so far as their provenances can be ascertained, are assigned 
by Mr. Poole with a few exceptions to the Cyrenalca or Cyprus. How 
far therefore these coins can be accepted as evidence for the Egyptian 


coinage may well be doubted, for, if there is any appreciable difference 
between Egyptian or Phoenician coins and those from the Cyrenafca or 
Cyprus, it is that the Egyptian and Phoenician coins tend to be somewhat 
heavier on the average, so that the Attic rather than the Egyptian 
standard is the more suitable for Cyprus and the Cyrena'fca, in addition 
to the argument brought by Mr. Poole of the improbability that an 
Egyptian standard would be forced on the outlying Greek dependencies. 
But a comparison of these copper coins assigned to Soter's reign with 
the coins from the Cyrenai'ca and Cyprus of a later date shows that the 
normal weights did not materially alter after Soter's reign, and it may 
therefore be conjectured that copper in Egypt, so far as it was used in 
Soter's reign, was on the same standard as it was afterwards. 

The circumstances of that reign were of course exceptional. The 
conquests of Alexander had poured on the Hellenistic world the vast 
treasures of the East, of which Soter had secured his full share. 
Necessarily for a time silver was much cheapened, and as Soter could 
afford at first to issue his tetradrachms on the Attic standard, the copper 
coins which were actually or approximately on the Attic standard, 
stood during that period at the ratio of 120:1. But the period of 
cheap silver during which even the obol seems to have been coined 
in silver, since the large copper coins representing the obol are not 
assigned by Mr. Poole to an earlier date than Philadelphus' reign 
and there are a few very small silver coins which may be assigned to 
that of Soter, soon passed away. Soter first reduced his silver coins 
to the Rhodian standard, bringing the ratio between silver and copper 
up to 140 : i, and finally reached the Phoenician standard for silver 
with a ratio of 150 : I, maintained in reality by Philadelphus and 
Euergetes, but only in name by their successors, who, as has been 
explained, adopted the alternative of debasing the silver down to the 
market ratio in preference to that of reflecting the market ratio in 
a pure coinage of diminished weight. 

8. Conclusion. 

Of M. Revillout's two brilliant and elaborate fabrics, based on his 
interpretation of the demotic papyri and his classification of the coins, by 
the glamour of which he has stood forth in the eyes of Europe since 


1882 as the chief authority on the subject, what remains? The first 
has in the light of the new information afforded by the Greek papyri 
assumed an aspect so changed as to be hardly recognizable ; while of 
the second a comparison with the recorded facts has left hardly one 
stone standing. In bidding farewell to M. Revillout's ingenious but 
unsound speculations, the conclusion of the whole matter is this : that 
the science of numismatics is concerned with actual, not with imaginary 
coins, and that if M. Revillout had been anxious not to risk his high 
place in the long roll of the illustrious successors of Champollion, he 
would have left questions of coinage to the numismatist, or, when he 
had to discuss them, he would at any rate have listened, and listened 
humbly, to what the numismatist has to say. 

The evidence for the solution of the three problems which I pro- 
posed at the beginning of this essay has now been reviewed. With 
regard to the discount on copper and the standard metal in use at 
various periods the papyri have provided the material for an approximate 
generalization, which was both confirmed and explained by the history 
of the silver and copper coinage. Both papyri and coins were found 
to converge towards the exchange ratio of 1 20 : i ; though they have 
not yet finally reached the goal. Lastly the two divisions of the third 
question, the ratio between silver and copper as metals and their ratio 
as coins, were found to be practically one question, the answer to which 
is that from the time of Philadelphus the rate was either in reality 
or name approximately 150:1; and the answer to this problem is 
sufficient to convert, at least provisionally, the whole system of Ptole- 
maic coinage, of which the outline as complete as the evidence will 
allow has been given in these pages, into a consistent whole. 

Much still remains to be done. The publication of detailed and 
accurate catalogues of the Ptolemaic copper coins in other European 
collections on the lines of Mr. Poole's great work will probably go far 
to solve many of the difficulties of classification which have yet to 
be overcome. The demotic papyri may be expected to give some 
new and much confirmatory evidence for the extensive use of copper 
before Philopator and the problems connected with it. But it is from 
Greek papyri, especially of the reigns of Philopator and Epiphanes, 
when taken in conjunction with the coins, that most will probably 
some day be learnt, since it is there, if anywhere, that an instance of 


the conversion of silver drachmae into copper drachmae is most likely 
to be found. 

It is even possible that the final solution of some of the problems 
may be within reach. Prof. Flinders Petrie has handed over to me 
for publication the remainder of the vast Petrie collection, which 
exceeds in bulk, though it falls short in importance, the selections 
already published by Prof. Mahaffy. Many of these papyri, it has 
now appeared from the occurrence in the collection of documents dated 
as late as P. P. xlvi, might belong to the reigns of Philopator and 
Epiphanes, and the cursory examination which I have made of them 
has shown me that many of them probably belong to the end rather 
than the middle of the third century, and has resulted in my publishing 
those printed in App. ii, of which the last is of the utmost importance 
for the history of the coinage. To the further examination of this 
collection, supplemented by the papyrus mummy cases of the same 
period, which I found at Gurob last spring but have not yet had time 
to open, I propose, with the aid of Mr. A. S. Hunt, to devote myself 
in the course of the next few years, in the hope of making more com- 
plete the answer here given in outline to the questions of the coinage, 
the solution of which must always, as Lumbroso has observed, form 
the basis of a correct understanding of Ptolemaic political economy. 

I conclude by thanking Profs. Wilcken, Gardner, and Mahaffy who 
have kindly revised the proofs of this Appendix, and who, I may 
add, have expressed their agreement with the general theory which 
I have proposed. 


(The figures in heavier type refer to columns.) 

31. 5; 63- 14, 20 ; 64. 2. 
AiyvTrrios 57. 4 ; 59. 3 ; Fr. 6 (c) 1 2. 
AAccu>5pia 40. 14 ; 47. 15, 1 8 ; 60. 
7; 62. 8, 14, 15, 20, 26, 28; 53. 
19, 27; 54. 9, 16, 18; 55. 15; 
68. 6 ; 60. 12, 21, 24; 6L 4, 16 ; 
62. 5 ; 72. 22 ; 91. 3 ; 97. 5 ; 99. 
6; 107.45 Fr. 6(3)7. 
ATToAAcorto? 23. 2 ; 38. ]. 
Apa^ia 31. 9 ; 65. 13, 18; 66. 2. 
36. 19. 

31. 13; 71. 13, 21. 

Fr. 6 (c) 6. 

31. 9 ; 64. 19 ; 65. 3, II. 
Bou/3curros 31. 10 ; 64. 2O ; 65. 4, 1 1 . 
31. 7 ; 63. 6, n. 

AcAra 31. 6. 
Atorv(To8a>poy 37. 12. 

EAmy 89. 13. 

31. II ; 69. 8, 14, 21. 

HAioTroAiTTjs 64. 3, 9, 17. 

31. 12; 70. II, 17; 

07?/3ais 24. 8 ; 31. 14 ; 72. 18. 
KwoiroAmjs 31. 12; 72. I, 7. 

31. 8 ; 67. 8, u, 2O. 
31. II ; 68. 15. 21. 

Ai/3wj 31. 4; 40. 14; 61. i, 6, 12. 
Aip-rr; 31. 12; 69. 2 ; 71. 5 ; 72. 1 2. 
Aifmnj? 71. 10. 

31. 10; 69. I, 6. 

s 31. IO; 72. II, 17. 

31. 7 ; 62. 16, 2O ; 63. 5. 
31. 5. 

60. 1 8. 

Nirpuorrjs 61. 2O ; 62. 2. 

Of rpuyxirrjs 81. II; 70. 1 , 9. 

rTTjAou<rioi> 52. 9, 18, 19, 2O, 26, 27 ; 
54. 16, 17 ; 93. I, 4. 

31. 5; 61. 13, 18. 

FlroAe/icuos 1. i , 2 bis ; 24. i &is, 2 ; 
37. 2. 

2aiT7)s 31. 4; 60. 18, 23. 
Sarvpoy 36. II ; 37. II. 

31. 7 ; 62. 3, 7, 15. 

93. I, 4. 
31. 8 ; 66. 3, 7, 15. 

2t/ia/)rro; 24. 9. 
Svpia 54. 17. 
2upo? 52. 26. 

-0>T7//) 1. 1. 

31. IO; 66. 16, 20 ; 67. 6. 

<I>a/>/3at0m;s 31. 8 ; 68. I, 5, 13. 
<InAa5eA<p05 36. IO, 19; 37. 7. 

I i 




a" = ava 98. I, 2, 3 bis, 4 foy. 

& = apovpa GO. 19, 2O, 23 ; 61-72, 


a/= apTafir] 57. 12 ; 59. 13. 

ap or op = apr 0/377 39. II, 12; 41. 
TO, ii ; 43. 17 fo.y, 18 foy; 46. 17 
for, 19 fo.y, 20 ; 53. 7, 16, 17 ; 55. 
5, 7, 8 bis, 9 fo.y ; 60. 25 ; 61-72 

h = Spaxw 31. 6, 13, 14 ; 33. 17 ; 
39. 3,5,6, 15; 40. 7, n, 13, 15, 
16 ; 41. 10, u, 18, 19; 43. 17, 
18 bis; 44. 17; 45. 4, 5, 6, 10 ; 
46. 19, 20; 49. 21; 50. 12, 19; 
52. 2, 6, n, 15, 25; 53. 7, 8 bis, 
14 for, 15 bis, 16, 17 foy, 20, 21 bis, 
22 for ; 54. 2 ; 55. 5, 7, 8 bis, 9 ; 
57. 12 bis ; 59. 13, 14; 75. 4; 
76. 8 ; 77. 8 ; 87. 2, 1 1 ; 94. 2, 5 ; 
95. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12; 96. 6; 97-4; 
98. I, 3, 4 foy. 

i/3x = 8a>8eKaxo7;s 53. 2O. 

L = ero? 33. 14, 21 ; 36. 2, 7 ; 37. 

9, 14 for; 38.1; 53. IO, II; 59.4; 

Fr. 4 (l)3>5; Fr. 6(c)n. 
jue = /Lurpjjrrjs 31. 6 ; 32. 19 ; 52. 6, 

ii, 25; 53. 8, 14, 15 bis, 20 foy, 

64. 2. 

jner = /zfTpTjrrj? 52. 15. 
v = -J- obol 53. 14, 21. 
C = obol 95. 6 ; 101. i. 
- = I obol 53. 15 ; 55. 8, 9 ; 95. 

= = 2 obols 39. 6 ; 40. 13, 15 ; 

43. 18; 53.15,17,20,21; 55.5; 

101. I. 

y=3 obols 39. 7 ; 45-4 ; 53. 14, 17. 
/ = 4 obols 39. 6 ; 45. 5 ; 53. 14, 

15, 21, 22. 

/= = 5 obols 45. 6. 
^i or ^ = OKTO-XOVS 31. 6 ; 32. 1 9. 
^ = TTTJXW 98. i, 2, 3. 
^ = rakavrov 13. 12 ; 15. 14 ; 41. 9 ; 

46. 6 ; 47. 8 ; 49. 8 ; 51. IO ; 54. 

12 ; 89. i ; 97. 4. 


ayeiv 52.14,18,21,23; Fr. 6(<r)i2. 
ayopa&iv 4. IO ; 14. 12 ; 34. 3, II ; 

41. 22 ; 42. 2 ; 45. 6; 55. 18 ; 

60. 23 ; 61-72 saep. ; 74. 6 ; 75. 4 ; 

76. 1,3,6; 96. 3; Fr. 4 (t) 8. 
ayopcuos 77. 5; 97. 1 1. 
aycoyt/xo? 44. II, 17. 
abiryyvos 17. 3. 
35. 3. 
20. IO. 

s 30. 13. 
20. 9. 

aiTios 41. 8 ; 47. 8 ; 51. IO. 
aKO\ov9fiv 55. 22. 
aAi<TKe0-0ai 76. 6. 
aAAayTj 76. 4. 
aXXoOtv 49. 1 8 ; 52. 9. 
aAXos 10. 2 ; 18. 1 6 ; 19. 9 fo.y, 1 1 ; 

21. 15; 22. 1 ; 30. 3, 5; 39. 19; 

43. 21 ; 44. 10 ; 49. 6 ; 57. 9 ; 



59. 10 ; 61-72 sacp. ; 74. 5 ; 76. 5 ; 

08. 2, 3 ; 103. 2, 8 ; Fr. 6 (e) 10. 
oAAtos SO. 6. 
a/ircuos 97. 7. 
a/xTTfAos 36. 5- 
afJLTTf\<av 25. 2 ; 26. 17 ; 33. II, 13, 

19; 36. 12, 15 ; 37. 10. 
avaydv 12. 3 ; 44. 16 ; 52. 8, IO, 17. 
avaypafytiv 27. 18; 47. 11. 
avafjLfTprjffts 27. 2. 
ava<p(p(tv 11. I, 7; 18. 15; 19. 5; 

75. 2, 3. 
arcu/jo/Ki 16. 10; 34. 8; 53. 24; 56. 

17 ; Fr. i (e) i. 
av(v 10. II, 1 8. 

50. 9 ; 51. 17, 1 8 ; 54. 19. 
48. II ; 51. 2O ; 53. 25; 

65. 4. 

ai'tt 41. 19. 
avTiypcuptvs 3. 2 ; 10. 6, II, 14, 18 ; 

11.2,4,8,12; 12. i; 13.3; 16.2; 

20. 14 ; 25. 6, 1 1 ; 28. 6, 12 ; 29. 

4 ; 30. 1 1 , 1 7 ; 32. 6 ; 33. 4 ; 34. 

12; 37. 4 ; 40. I, 2O ; 41. 2, 4, 8 ; 

43. 22; 44. 13; 45. 16, 19; 46. 

8, 9; 47. 10;' 48. I, 5; 49. 12, 
16, 23; 60. 3, 23; 51. 15, 20; 
54. 16, 20, 22 ; 55. 21, 22 ; 81. 6 ; 
82. 3; 84. 3; 87. 13; 88. 14; 
96. 4 ; 97. i ; 104. i ; Fr. 4 (i} I ; 
Fr. 5 (a) i, (c) 5. 

avriypa<t>ov 18. 1 , 4, 7 ; 27. 4, 1 8 ; 

37. I, 6. 

avTiXryav 28. 5 ; 29. 12 ; 89. 2. 
airaiTfiv 19. 14; 35. 3. 
-av 18. 9. 

43. IO. 
17. 2. 

14. 3; 26. I, 6, 15; 27. 

9, 16; 29.2; 88.9,15; 86.4,17; 
49. 10; 5O. 21 ; 51. 7, 17 ; 52. 14; 
78. 4 ; 85. 10 ; 86. 12 ; Fr. 2 (d) 
i, 2; Fr. 6 (d) 10. 

14. 2; 86. II, 13. 

I i 

26. 4, 8 ; 27. 15 ; 41. 3 ; 
64. 8 ; 67. 8 ; 59. 9 ; 76. 2 ; 87. 9. 
30. 15. 

19. 12, 13, 14; 26. 13; 
29. 14. 17; 32. 17; 33. 21 ; 35. 
2, 4 ; 41. 25 ; 45. 8 ; 46. 18 ; 50. 
18; 84. 7; 91. 9; 103. 9. 

31. I, 19; 32. 2; 64. 1 8. 

39. IO. 
aijoKa6i(rrai'ai 17. 5- 
30. 2O. 
47. 5 7- 

25. 12, 15; 27. 3, 17; 28. 
14; 30. 18, 20, 21 ; 31. I, 3; 32. 
9, 17, 20. 
airo-npafjia 18. 1 6. 

cnrooTf AAeiu 18. 6 ; 37. 6 ; 51. 22 ; 
54. 17. 

i(T/^a 31. 17, 19; 40. 2, 5 I 

50. 17 ; 53. 5 ; 56. 2 1. 
11. 2, 5, 9 ; 13. 12 ; 15. i, 
9, 14; 19. 14; 20. 3; 21. 5; 25. 
16 ; 26. 9 ; 31. 2 ; 33. 1 6 ; 40. 6 ; 

41. 6; 43. 8 ; 44. 16 ; 45. 9, 15; 
46. 6 ; 47. 7 ; 49. 8, 20 ; 50. 18 ; 
51. 8 ; 55. 23 ; 56. J i ; 75. 3 ; 
84. 8 ; Fr. 2 (,) 5 ; Fr. 6 (d) 5- 

airpaKTos 49. 23. 

apyos 46. I 2 ; 47. 4. 

apyvpiov 24. 12; 37. 18; 39. 17; 

46. 6 ; 47. 8 ; 75. 6 ; 77. 2. 
apioros 32. 15. 
apovpa 32. 1 2 ; 36. 5 ; 41. 6, 1 8 bis ; 

42. 9 ; 43. 4 ; 57. 7 ; 59. 6, 8 ; 
61-72 sacp. ; 87. 6. See also 
Index of Symbols. 

apTapr) 39. 2, 6 bis \ 46. 16 ; 59. 14; 

61-72 saep. See also Index of 


apxi<pv\aKi.Tris 37. 5- 
ap\d)i'fiv 14. 3* 
apx">i7js 10. 10 ; 11. 14 ; 13. 4, 7 ; 

14. 2,9; 34. 15, 18. 


26. 5. 

a<T(f)payi<rTOS 7. I ; 28. I ; 47. 5> 6. 
areAqs 28. 18; 29. I ; 43. II ; 52. 

26 ; 83. 8. 

av0r)fj.pov 20. 9 ; 26. 15 ; 48. 9 ; 
56. II. 

55. I. 

(TJ a^pKT^vi]} 58. 5 ; 60. 
10; 61. 1,3. 

/3curtAeuai> 1. 1 ; 24. I. 

/3cunAt>s 12. 4; 13. 13; 36. 13; 37. 

2; 49. 20; 51. 22; 86. 1O ; 93. 

6 ; 97. 2. 
/3a<nAiKoy. ro /3a0\ 5. I ; 11. 3,9; 

13. 12 ; 15. i, 14 ; 20. 3 ; 28. 14 ; 

31. 16 ; 34. 7 ; 40. 7 ; 41. 9 ; 45. 

10 ; 47. 8 ; 49. 8 ; 50. 8 ; 51. 9 ; 

54.11,13; 68.9; 60. 17; 75.7; 

77. 4; 85. 2; 87. 6, 10; 97. 9; 

98. IO ; Fr. 4 (b) 9. ra Ja<r. 15. 

4; 20. II, 15; 74. 2; (3a<r. ypa/x- 

juarevy 33. 9 ; 36. 3 ; 37. 4, 1 9. 

/3acr. eAcuoupyia 49. 1 6. /3a0\ op/cos 

27. 6, 14. /3a<r. rpa7rea 32. 13 ; 

34. 17; 48. 10; 75. I. 
pXapos 11. 6; 26. IO; 33. 18 ; 45. 

18; 46. 6; 49. 9 ; 51. n. 
/SActTrreiy 12. 4. 
/3ouAetr0ai 2. 2 ; 14. 3 ; 20. 2 ; 21. 

13 ; 25. I, 4 ; 26. 7 ; 28. IO ; 39. 

8; 40.17; 41.17; 50. i ; 51. 12 ; 

55. 19 ; 87. 13 ; 88. 7. 
103. I. 

yez/77/za 24. 15; 27. 7, 15; 28. 18 ; 
30. 14, 18; 32. 10; 36. 6, 8, 17, 
18; 37. 15; 42. 12; 45. 2. 

yeviKos 18. 13. 

yevos 42. 12, 17 ; 48. 6 ; 54. 23. 

yeajjuerpei^ 41. 5- 

yecopyeiv 36. 15; 37. 13. 

yecopyos 24. 15; 25. 4, 8, 15; 26. 
Ji, 15; 27. 5, 9, 12, 14; 28. 9, 

13; 29. 15, 17; 30. 7, 9, 19, 21 ; 

31. 15, 20; 32. 7, 8, 14; 36. 7; 

39. 8, 13, 19; 40. 45 42. 5, II ; 

43. 2,4, 7, 10, 24; 46. 10. 
y?) 36. 8, 17 ; 43. 12. 3. i ; 9. 8 ; 14. 14 ; 16. 5, 

8 ; 17. II ; 21. 11,14; 24. 4; 25. 

12 ; 28. 6, 14 ; 30. 21 ; 34. 8, 18 ; 

36. I bis\ 37. 7, 8, 16 ; 43. 13; 

45. 17; 51. 20; 53. 24; 55. 12, 

23 ; 56. 1 9 ; 61-72 saep. ; 107. 6 ; 

Fr. 5 (a) 6, (d) 3. 
yo/xos 54. 9. 

57. 4 ; 59. 3. 
9. 6. 

36. 4. 

, see /3a<riAi/co? ypaju-juareu?. 
ypafytiv 7. 3 ; 9. 6, 8 ; 11. 7 ; 15. 13, 

16; 21. 3, 7; 22. 3; 25. 14; 29. 

10; 30. 9, 17; 33. 16; 36. i; 

39. 17; 42. 15; 43. 9; 45. 14; 

48. 15; 49. 3; 52. 28; 53. IO ; 

54. 22 ; 55. i , 3 ; 74. 3 ; 77. i, 2 ; 

87. 6 ; 91. 4 ; 103. 4 ; 104. 2 ; 

Fr. 2 (g] 5 ; Fr. 6 (/) 10. 
12. 3 ; 51. 22. 

Aaio-tos 36. 2. 
bavciCeiv 78. I, 2, 3. 
Sei 13. i; 18. 14, 17; 32. 9, 17; 
36. 9; 37. 6; 41. IO, 25; 47. 14; 
61-72. saep. ; 77. 3. 
?) 89. 14. 
12. 17. 
5e/carosr 9. 3 ; 16. 4; 18. 12 ; 24. IO. 

8eX co "^ at 66. 5- 
8rjAow 3O. 14. 
8iaytyyco(TKeti; 14. I ; 49. 2O ; 93. 6 ; 

97. 2. 
8iaypa/^ia 39. 17; 49. 3; 63. II ; 

55. 1,3; 73. i; 103.3. 
biaypafaiv 13. 3 ; 32. 1 1 ; 34. 22 ; 

43. 7, 20 ; 77. 4. 
biabrj\ovv 16. 17- 



dia0ris 53. 19; 60. 22, 25; 61-72 

biaXoyi&o-Oai 16. 2; 18. 5, 12 ; 20. 

i, ii ; 34. 12 ; 64. 21. 
SiaAoyur/ioy 16. I, 15, 16; 17. 17; 

18. 7, 13; 20.5, 8; 34. 9. 
SiaoreAAeiy 36. 7- 
(naTiOtrtii 48. 4. 

Startjuar 26. IO ; 51. 1 1 ; 55. 24. 
8tartfiTj<riy 55. 24. 
5i5orai 14. 16; 18. 2 ; 20. 7, 9 ; 27. 

5; 30. 18; 31. 2O ; 32. 8, 15; 

33. 5; 36. 10, 18; 37. 11, 15, 18; 

39. 8; 40.3,4; 41. J6; 43-3,6, 

25 ; 48. 1 2 ; 51. 23 ; 54. 8 ; 65. 

13, 16; 56. 20; 57. II, 1 6 ; 59. 

12, 18; 76. 9; 77. I, 3; 84. 3; 

Fr. 2 (*) i ; Fr. 6 (e) 8, 9. 
5ieyyva(r0ai 14. 15; 15. 2. 
bi(p\f(rOai 18. IO. 
Sucauos 27. 17; 33. 15; 86. II. 

33. 16; 84. 8. 
51. 1 6. 

15. 4 ; 24. 9 bis, 17 ; 25. 5 ; 
26. 2 ; 3O. 14, 16 ; 33. 3 ; 37. 13 ; 
41. 3 ; 42. 8 ; 44. 1 1 ; 49. 11; 

55. ii. 

SUHKTJO-IS 18. 8 ; 19. 6, 7, 15 ; 32. 1 1 ; 

41. 13, 24; 46-5; 51.23; 88 - i ; 

90. 8. 

SioucTjrrjs 23. 3 ; 38. 3 ; 86. 6, 7. 
biopdovv 16. 13; 18. 14; 29. 21 ; 

33. 6 ; 38. 2 ; 56. 15 ; Fr. i (e) 2. 
57. I ; 59. I. 

34. 5 ; 37. 9. 

25. 15 ; 29. 9 ; 33. 18 ; 42. 
15; 45. 12, 18; 46. 7; 55. 25; 

56. I 3 . 

bt\ofJirivia 56. 18. 
JouAoy 16. 7. 

bpa X M 12. 15, 16, 17, 18; 16. 9; 
39. 14 ; 46. 20. See also Index 
of Symbols. 
48. 9. 

40. 1 1 ; 45. 4. Sec also 
Index of Symbols. 

36. 15 ; 43. 1 1 ; 44. 3. 

58. 8 ; 60. 15. 

cy-ypa<f)(tv 17. 13* 

(yyvrjTTjs 11. 15 ; 20. 7. 

tyyvos 17. 13 ; 19. 3 ; 22. 7 ; 34. 2, 

19 ; 66. 14 ; Fr. 6 (a) 8. 
ey8ez 17. I, 8, 1 1 ; 34. 17 ; 46. 16 : 

47. 9. 

ey*aAf iv 8. 3 ; 86. 8. 
iTrety 53. J 2. 
21. II, 13. 
cy\ap.pavfiv 29. 13 ; 73. 5. 
eyAoyiorrjs 18. 9 ; 37. 1 2. 
44. 15. 
98. 8. 
50. 7, 8 ; 64. 7 bis, 8, i o ; 

59. 19. 

eraya>yeus 16. 5- 
ao-bibovai 83. 7- 
i(ri<t)v 57. 7 ; 69. 8. 
fio-npao-o-fiv 19. 15 ; 21. 7 ; 31. 14 ; 

41. 12, 23; 49. 22; 64. II ; 93. 

(Kao-Tos 7. 4 ; 12. 14 ; 13. i ; 16. 3 ; 
17.5; 18. 2,4,16; 19. i; 20.7; 
21. 15 ; 25. 9 ; 26. 14 ; 30. 6, 12, 
16 ; 31. 18 ; 32. 9; 33. II, 17 ; 
34. 16, 19; 36. 4, 16; 37. 17; 
40-4; 41. 8; 42. 12, 16, 17; 44. 
5,8, 17; 45. 20; 46. 16 ; 47. 8, 
12, 17 ; 48. 4, 6 bis, 14; 6O. 9, 
ii, 18, 23; 51. 10 ; 63. 5, 18; 
54. II, 23 ; 57. 9; 58. I; 69. JO; 

60. 3 ; 75. 4 ; 84. 7 ; 86. 2 ; Fr. 
4 (a) 6. 

fnOffJia 26. 13 ; 33. IO ; 67. 5 ; 59. 4. 
(KK(L<rdai 57. 6 ; 59. 5 ; 103. 3. 
eKicATjTos 21. IO, 15. 

fKTTiTTTflV 29. 19. 

24. 5, 12; 29. IO, 17 ; 33. 21 
bis; 36. 9, 18 ; 37. 7, 16. 



9. 2; 48. 15; 53. n. 

eAaurj 43. 15 ; 50. 15, 19; 54. 14; 
67. 2, 3 ; 68. 3 ; 59. I, 2 ; 60. 7 ; 
69. 6 ; 72. 16. 

eAaiou 40. 9 ; 41. 1 2 ; 45. 2, 3 ; 47. 
2, 14; 48. 4; 49. 18, 21 ; 51. 5, 
12, 21, 24; 52. I, 10, 13, 22, 24, 
26; 53. 2, 17, 20, 27; 54. 8, 9, 

10, 16 ; 55. 7, 15, 19 ; 57. 16, 18, 
19; 58. 2; 59.19,20, 21; 60. 

4, 16. 

eAcuou/jyeiv 50. 2O ; 51. 15. 
eAcuoupyiop, 44. 4 ; 45. 13 ; 49. 16 ; 

50. 23 ; 55. 20 ; 58. 6 ; 60. 12. 
(Xaiovpyos 44. 8, 14, 17 bis; 45. 3, 

5, 8, 10 ; 46. 10, 13; 47. I, 6; 
49. I ; 55. 1 1 ; 56. 19. 

f \aa-o-ov 28. 5 ; 46. 15 ; 50. 12 ; 52. 

2. 12, 16; 57. 8; 59. 8. 
\y\tiv 33. 17. 
eAAei7reu> 15. 15; 57. 10, 16; 59. 

11, 18. 
e/XTToAay 29. 14. 

cfj.iropi.ov 9. 2 ; 93. 11 ; 107. I. 
e/x7ropos 52. 25; 77. 7; 91. 5, 8; 

102. 2. 

(UTTpoa-Qev 32. 7 ; 48. 14. 
evavTiov 25. 6; 3O. JO; 43. 2; 50. 
15; 51. 15; 54. 22. 

54. 10. 
56. 9. 

eviavros 34. 2O ; 37. 16, 18 ; 51. 17. 
ewrrarai 16. 8. 

fWo/JLiov Fr. 4 (;) 8 ; Fr. 6 (<:) 3, 
14, (d\ 7. 

Fr. 5 () 2. 

18. 17 ; 19. 2, 9, 10, 11 ; 
31. 3 . 

20. IO. 

4. i ; 6. 2; 56. I. 
eayeii; 57. 14. 
101. I. 
53. 12. 

48. 9. 

2. 4 ; 6. 1 ; 14. IO ; 29. 12; 
30. 9 ; 51. 24 ; 52. 7 ; 55. 25 ; 
56. 7 ; 75. 5 ; 76. 5 ; Fr. 2 (*) 7. 
v 10. 3 ; 25. IO ; 40. 19. 
tj> 56. 12. 
39. 19 ; 54. 6. 
co 41. 13 ; 43. 2 ; 50. 8. 
ayyeAAetr 24. 17 ; 30. 7 ; 42. 4 ; 
Fr. 2 (*/) 7. 

57. 22 ; 60. I. 
v 46. 13. 
24. 8. 

16. 5, 9, 1 6, 18 ; 17. I. 
4O. IO, 12; 55. 9. 
42. 8. 

4. 3 ; 17. 6. 
e7ri/3aAAeu' 19. I ; 26. 5, 8 ; 29. 14 ; 

34. 6, 16, 19 ; 56. 17. 
eTriyejnjjua 17. 2, 4, II, 12 ; 19. 4 ; 
34. 14, 15; 41. II ; 65. 10,14; 
67. 17, 20; 59. 19, 23. 
e7rty ( oa</>eu> 19. 4. 

f-mbeiKweiv 25. 2 ; 26. 6, 16 ; 49. 
12; 51. i, 7. 

eii> 34. 14. 
7. 6. 

e7Tt0aAao-(no? 93. 5- 
48. 13. 

28. 6, 7 ; Fr. 2 (tf) 5. 
30. 7 ; 46. 2. 
4. 3 ; 6. I ; 8. 4. 
19. 12. 
37. 7. 

28. 17 ; 29. I. 
fmTTa.papi6iJ.tiv 76. 2. 

TTKTTHJ.atVlV 44. I . 
CTTiVKOTTtlV 19. 8 J 33. 2. 

44. 15. 

TTLTI.IJ.OV 43. 8 ; 85. I, 7 ; Fr. 4 (b) 
6, W 8. 

(TTLTpfTTflV 44. 9. 

eTTiwj; 17. 2. 

epyaeo-0cu 46. 14 ; 49. 5. 



49. 6. 

44. I, .5; 45. 20; 46. 
1 1 ; 47. 4 ; 50. 24 ; 51. i . 
103. 2. 

36. 2 ; 37. 9. 
trcpos 7. i ; 16. 10, ii ; 27. H. 
<ros 24. 2 ; 67. .5 ; Fr. 6 (//) 7. See 

also Index of Symbols. 
fvboKav 29. 8. 
cvpia-Kfiv 41. 5; 48. 16; 49. l6 ; 

66. 7. 
/>eiKOorros 34. 3 ; 56. 15- 

48. 6, 14. 
10. I, 16 ; 12. 17. 
popav 25. I. 

4. 3 ; 18. 3 ; 27. 1 2 ; 31. 3 ; 
36. 1 2 ; 37. 16 ; 39. 19 ; 43. 12 ; 
53. 2/ ; 54. 7 ; 85. 3 ; 88. 6 ; 
96. I. f^ofifvos 16. 155 18- II j 
34. 20; 56. 17. *x- Tr l v a > vr l v or 
ray corns 10. 13 ; 16. 3 ; 18. i, 10; 
20. I ; 25. 1 , 1 6 ; 26. 9 ; 27. 1 ; 
28.3, 15; 29. 13,16,20; 34. 13; 
41. 9; 42. 7, 14; 46. 8; 49. 14, 
19, 20; 60. 1.5; 61. 19; 62.4; 
53. 4, 23 ; 64. 21 ; 55. 25 ; 67. 
23 ; 60. I ; 84. I, 2, 6, 9 ; 85. 8 ; 
107. 9; Fr. 2 (/) i. 
)S IO. 14; 13. 13; 34. 5; 37. 14; 

55. 22. 

55. 19, 2O; 66. I, 7, 8. 
65. 17, 23; 66.4,9, *3- 

66. 8. 
>v 37. 3. 

, 4. 1,2; 6.3; 9. 1,5; 15. 16; 
19. 13; 29. 15; 32. 7; 33. IO, 
II; 34. 3,4; 35. 4; 43-5; 46. 
13, 15; 47. 15; 48. 10, 15, 16; 
49. 12 ; 60. 10, 14, 19 ; 53. 6, 7 ; 

56. I, 16; 75.3,4; 81. 4; 86. 
I, 2 ; 93. 10. 

r)fji(po\cybov 4. I. 

54. 3. 
Ova-ta 36. 19. 

16. 14 ; 19. 3 ; 32. IO; 52. 13, 
23 ; Fr. 2 (h) 2. 

37. 17; 106. 3 ; 107. 4. 
tcpov 33. 14, 20 ; 37. 1.5 ; 50. 2O, 24; 

61. 9, 12, 21, 25 ; 66. 8. 
icpos 36. 8. 

iKaros 32. 4 ; 40. I/; 43. 16; 44. 
6 ; 46. 14. 

LTTTTap\OS 37. 2. 

nttorripiov 49. 6, 13 ; 61. I, 2. 
10-09 39. 12 ; 67. 17, 21 ; 69. 19, 24. 
la-ravai. 16. 4 ; 18. 12. 
KTTOS 90. 4 ; 94. 2, 5. 

KaOaipfiv 39. 9. 
KaOaiTfp 29. 9 ; 62. 27. 
xaOapos 39. 3, 4, 5, 8. 
41. 14. 

3. 2 ; 13. I ; 21. 4, 6, 8 ; 

29. 5 : 31. 18 ; 34. 2 ; 44. 4 ; 46. 

7, 13 ; 46. 8 ; 47. IO ; 48. I ; 51. 

19 ; 52. 27 ; 54. 20 ; 56. 14 ; Fr. 

6 (a) 12. 
Ka6oTi 28. 7 ; 45. 13; 65. 16 ; 74. 

3 ; Fr. 4 (;;/) 2. 
Kad<t)s 21. 3. 

KaAeir 8. 3 ; 21. 12, 1 6 ; 35. 3. 
ca7n;A.oy 47. 1 1 ; 48. 3, 7. 

KapTTt/409 55. 2O. 

Kapiros 29. 13, 18 ; 34. IO; 43. 5. 

48. IO ; 62. 15, 1 8, 23 ; 

74. 2 ; 76. 5. 

40. 8 ; 45. II, 15. 
Karaypa</>Tj 34. 4. 
Kara8ifcae<r0ai 6. 2. 
KaTa\afj.f3avav 46. 5- 
KaraTrpoiepcu 27. 1 1 . 
Kara<rKcvr; 45. 2O ; 46. 1 1 . 
jcaraoTreipeiy 41. 6; 42. 16; 57. 8; 

69. 9. 



44. 9. 
50. 14. 

' 16. 14 ; 19. IO; 27-7, 
10 ; 28. 15; 31. 15; 48. I ; 52. 

21 ; 54. 13. 

TfpyaCf 0-60.1 45. 3 ; 46. 14 ; 49. 

17; 51. 12, 16, 24; 55. I; 56. 

20; 57. 19, 22; 59. 22, 25; 61- 

72 saep. 

Tfpyov 21. 2 ; 46. 2 ; 53. 25 ; 55. 

15; Fr. 6 (a) 14. 
26. 15- 
32. 3 ; 55. 4. 
/cepa/xos 32. 2, 3, 8, 14, 16 ; 53. 21. 
KIKI 40. io, 12, 15, 16; 41. 12; 47. 

14; 48. 4; 49. 1 8 ; 51. 18, 21 ; 

53. 8, 14, 20, 21, 27 ; 55. 7 ; 57. 

1 8, 21 ; 58. 2; 59. 21, 24; 60. 


xXripos 24. 7 ; 36. 13. 
n\rjpov\os 36. 12. 
KVTjKivos 4O. 10 ; 49. 18; 53. 15, 22; 

55. 8. 

JOCKOS 39. 5, 12 ; 42. 4; 43. 1 8 ; 44. 
6; 46. 17, 20; 49. 17; 53. JO, 
I 7 ; 55.5. 

KOIVOW 10. io ; 11. 15; 14. 10, 16; 
18. 2. 

13. io ; 15. 2 ; 22. 2. 
i> 15. 7- 

39. 6 ; 4O. io, 12 ; 53. 

22 ; 55. 6, 9 ; 57. 18 ; 58. 2 ; 59. 
21 ; 60. 5. 

28. 13 ; 29. 15; 31. 19, 21 ; 
32. 16 ; 41. 19 ; 42. 13 ; 43. 16 ; 
48. 8; 52. 13, 27, 29: 53. 13. 

K07T6US 45. 5- 

39. 9. 
40. 13, 15. 
46. 4 ; 90. 9. 

39. 3, 12, 15, 20; 41. II, 15, 
18, 21,26; 42.4; 43.14,17,21, 

23 ; 44. 6 ; 46. 17, 19 ; 49. 17 ; 
53. 6, 8, TO, 17 ; 55. 5 ; 57. 6. 10, 

11, 13, 14, I.5> 2T 5 68. I, 4; 59. 
7, ll, 13, 14, 16, 18, 25; 60. 4, 
io, 20 ; 61-72 saep. 

29. 2 ; 33. 19 ; 36. 14. 
37. 14, 17. 

3. 2 ; 46. io. 
30. 6. 
Kvpovv 48. 17. 
Ko>/zapxT?9 40. 2, 3, 5. 
KCO/XTJ 26. 14 ; 29. 6 ; 31. 18 ; 40. 6, 
19; 43. 12; 44. 3; 48. 4,6, 17; 

54. 12; 75. 1 ; 85. 1 1 ; Fr. 6 (//) 

Aa/u/3amz; 6. 2; IO. 12; 11. I; 12. 
2 ; 16. 13 ; 22. 2, 4 ; 32. 14; 34. 
7; 36. 13; 37. 17; 39. 13; 40. 
4; 41. io ; 45.5; 47.14; 51. 18; 
52. 16, 19 ; 53. 18, 19 ; 54. 7, TO ; 
57. 17, 21, 22 ; 58. 7 ; 59. 20, 24, 
25; 60. 14; 75. 6; 76. 4; 83. 
io ; 97. 6; Fr. 4 (b) 5; Fr. 6 

W * 
Aaos 42. II, 16. 

Aeia Fr. I (d) I ; Fr. 3 (a) 3 ; Fr. 

6 ( C ) 13. 

Arjyos 26. 12 ; 31. 24. 
Ai/3uapx?7S 37. 5- 
\LVOS 39. 7 ; 55. 6 ; 57. 19 ; 59. 22 ; 

87. 3, 5 ; 95. 9 ; 102. 6 ; 103. 6. 
Aoyeveiy 4. 1 ; 39. 14 ; 52. 2O. 
Aoyev/xa 3. 5 ; 12. 13 ; 56. 15. 
Aoyeimjptoy 11. 13. 
Aoyeurrj? 9. 2; 10. 1 ; 11. 16; 12. 

12, 14 ; 13. 2 ; 16. 1 1 ; 52. 27. 
Aoyo? 7. 3 ; 15. 16 ; 30. 19 ; 33. 7 ; 

50. 13; 52. 3, 12, 16. 
AOITTOJ 10. 16; 18. 17; 19. 4; 21. 
13; 36. 9, 14; 42. 11 ; 43. 14; 

55. 4; 83. 4; 88. II ; 103. n; 
105. 8. 

Aauos 38. 1. 

5O. 14. 



paprvs 7. 1. 

26. 4 : 60. 9. 
33. I. 

iv 45. 2, 9 ; 66. 1 o, 14 : 107. 3. 
r*t~> 8. 2 ; 17. 3 ; 19. 2 ; 107. 7. 
Meffopi) 67. 5 ; 59. 4 ; 83. I ; Fr. 

/LKTc^loAos 47. 12; 48. 3, 7. 
fM(Tairop(V((rdai 44. IO. 

16. 10; 17. 12, 14, 16 
5 49. 15. 

44. II. 
14. II, 13. 
14. 10 ; 34. 16. 
34. 12, 13, 15, 19. 
25. H ; 48. 7 ; 67. 2O ; 59. 


TPTJTTJS 40. II, 13, 15, 16; 45-4; 
60. 12; 52. 2. See also Index 
of Symbols. 

25. 8, 12 ; 40. 19. 
Mt\fip 86. 3 ; Fr. 6 (c) io. 

52. 9. 

1. 15, 16, 18; 16. 4,8; 18. 7, 
11 ; 34.5; 38. I ; 47. 18; 48. 5, 
I4;54.22; 56. 17; 67.4; 69.3; 
86.3; Fr. 2(/) 5; Fr. 4 (c) 3 5 
Fr. 6 (c) 9, io, ii. 

48. 16; Fr. 4 (//) 8. 
12. 14 ; 45. ii ; 55. 13. 16. 

64. 12. 

fjiva 14. 13 ; 16. I ; 20. 3 ; 25. 3. 
Ho\vpt>[ 76. 8. 

85. 6. 

Fr. 2 () 6. 
riKr 23. 16 ; 84. 8. 
ronapxns 37. 3 ; 41. I, 7, 1 6 ; 42. 5, 

6, 19; 43. 3; Fr. 4(0)5. 
ro/xos = law 4. 8 ; 15. 12; 20. 6 ; 

21. 3, n, 14, 15; 2Q. 15; 26. 7; 

29. io ; 30. 6, 9 ; 62. 28 ; 67. I ; 

59. I ; 80. 2; 81. I, 3 ; 84. 8; 

Fr. 2 (</) 3. 

re/bios = nome 32. 13; 33. 12 ; 36. 
4 bis ; 37. 13 ; 41. 20, 25 ; 43. 21 ; 
44. 8, 10 ; 46. IO; 62. 21 ; 53. 5, 
18, 20; 57. 9, 10, 13 ; 68. I ; 69. 

10, 11, 15; 60. 3; 61. 9,24; 62. 

11, 19; 63. 2, 9, 16, 22; 64.5, 
13, 22; 65. 7, 15, 21 ; 66. 5, 11, 
18; 67. 2, II, 17; 68. 3, IO, 19; 
69. 10, 18; 70. 6, 13, 21 ; 71. 9, 
18; 72. 3; 107. 2; Fr. I (<r) I. 

vofjLos = distribution? 41. 16 ; 43. 2. 
vcxr<j)i(u> 27. io. 

CVIKOS 52. 13, 26. 


58. 7; 60 15; 76. 4. See 
also Index of Symbols. 
oQoviov 98. 9 ; 99. 5. 
29. 6. 

3. 3 ; 5. 6 ; 10. J I ; 11. 8, 
1 1 ; 12. J ; 13. 3 ; 16. 2 ; 17. 2, 
17; 18. Ii, 13, 17; 19. II, 13; 

20. 2 dis, 3, 7, 14 ; 21. 3 ; 22. 6 ; 
25. 6, 1 1 ; 27. 1 2 ; 28. 6, I 2 ; 29. 
4, II, 18, 20; 30. II, 17; 31. 14, 
18, 22; 32. 6; 34. ii ; 37. 4; 
40. 20 ; 41. 2, 4, 7, 14, 27 ; 42. 

6 ; 43. 22 ; 44. 12; 45. 7, 16, 19 ; 
46. 9; 47. 2, io ; 48. 1,5; 49. 
ii, 14, 22; 60.3,22 ; 51. 14,20; 
62. 27 ; 53. 13, 26 ; 64. 2O ; 55. 

21, 22; 67. 20; 58. 5; 59. 23; 
6O. 1 1 ; 74. i ; 81. 6 ; 83. 7 ; 87. 

7 ; 89. 6 ; 91. I ; 96. 2, 4 ; 97. I ; 
Fr. 3 (b) 2 ; Fr. 4 (c ) 2 ; Fr. 6 

W 9- 

ou-o-oteir 25. 4; 25. 7 ; 26. I, II. 
(uroy 24. 4 : 26. 12, l6; 32.4,19; 

34. 7 ; 37. 1 8. 

oA/Ltos 39. 3, 5 bis, 9, Ii ; 46. 16; 
49. 5, J 3 ; 60. 24 ; 51. 2. 
56. II ; 86. IO. 
37. 1 8. 
$ 92. 4. 



ovopa 7. 2 ; 11. 14; 29. 6 ; 47. II ; 
91.5; 93. 8; 104.3; Fr.6(//) 9 . 
OTTO)? 36. I ; 37. 8. 
opcu> 41. 13 ; 43. 2. 
opyavov 26. I, 6 ; 46. 12 ; 47. 4, 7. 
opKi*tv 56. 8. 
opKO? 27. 6, 14; 42. 17. 
OO-THTOVV 36. 1 6 ; 37. 10 ; 49. 1 8. 
5. I ; 20. 8 ; 85. 9. 

ar iv 47. 1 6. 
Trapayivea-dai. 25. 7 j 3O. 4, 13. 
7rapa8eiyp;a 89. 3 5 102. 4. 
TrapaSeto-os 24. II ; 29. 2, 7 ; 33. II, 

13, 19; 36. 6, 13, 15; 37. 10. 
7rapa8exeo-0ai 14. 15 ; 87. 9. 
7rapa5i8oz;ai 12. 2 ; 49. 23 ; 89. 7. 

54. 15. 

20. 2 ; 25. 5 ; 30. 8 ; 42. 
7 ; 55. 21. 

Trapa/coAoufletz; 54. l 9. 
TTapaKop,ibrj 48. n ; 55. 12. 
TrapaKOfJ.ifiv 48. 4 ; 52. 26. 
iiapaXa}Jifiaveiv 9. I ; 33. 3 ; 34. II ; 
43. 23; 49.2; 61. 13; 52. 4; 
53. 4, 6 ; 54. 23 ; 55. 2 ; 58. 5 ; 
60. II ; 74. I, 4. 
55. 23. 

39. 9 ; 43. 2, 12, 19. 76. 3. 
?rapacr(ppayieo-0ai 46. II ; 54. 1 8 ; 

57. 23 ; 60. 2 ; 76. I. 
7rapao-0payto-/xos 26. 7 ; 51. 3, 8. 
i 44. 5 j 45. 14. 
18. 2 ; 26. 10 ; 30. 15. 
18. IO ; 3O. IO ; 55. 2O. 
Trapevpecris 14. 7 ; 47. 3 ; 49. 7 ; 50. 

6, 1 6 ; 54. 7 ; 74. 7. 
TTapexew 26. 7 ; 32. 2, 9, 14, 16 ; 40. 
16 ; 43. 6 ; 51. 2, 8 ; 57. 9 ; 59. 
10; 76. 2. 
Tiapiaravai 33. 4. 
irarpis 7. 3 ; 11. 12; 104. 4. 

7. 3 ; 11. 1 2 ; 104. 4. 

105. 2. 
v 48. 8. 

11. 6 ; 49. 9 ; 51. 1 1. 
t. 19. 8. 

16. 16, 18; 17. 14; 34. 14. 
7repia>fia 94. 7. 
Tinrpaa-Keiv 2. I, 3 ; 18. 9 ; 22. I ; 

29. 19. 
7H7rre6i> 3. 6. 

4. 2, 3 ; 28. 5 ; 29. 16 ; 49. 
4 ; 50. 8,12; 52. 2, 1 1 ; 53. 1 2 ; 
57. 6; 58. 8, 9; 59. 6; 6O. 16. 

57. 13 ; 59. 15. 
27. I; 33. 12; 36. 5, 17 ; 
37. 15; 41.5; 43. 7; 48.6. 

17. 3. 
TrAoioz; 81. 2. 

Troiav 12. 13; 13. II; 15. 13; 16. 
15; 17. I, 17; 25. 14; 30. 12, 
15; 33. 10 ; 34. 3, 20 ; 42. 13; 
43. 21 ; 47. 2, 9 ; 48. 13, I 7 ; 56. 
9, 13 ; Fr. i (g) 2. 
Trotos 37. 15. 
iroAts 26. 14 ; 40. 18; 47. 12; 75. 

I ; 104. 4. 
Tropeia 50. II. 

TTOVOS 19. I ; 29. 6 ; 50. 23, 24. 
7rpay/zarfUc(T0ai 7. 2, 4 ; 8. 2 ; 10. 3, 
17; 12. 2,5; 20. 15, 16 ; 21. 7; 

30. 5 ; 36. 1 1 ; 37. 1 1 ; 47. 2, 14 ; 
5O. 2, 21 ; 51. 13; 55. 13. 

7rpais 5. 3 ; 15. 10 ; 17. 12 ; 20. IO ; 

28. II ; 34. 20. 
ij-pao-ts 45. 9 ; 52. 5, 8 ; 54. I ; 55. 

1 6. 
irpao-o-eiy 8. I ; 11. I ; 14. 13 ; 15. 

II ; 18. 17 ; 19. II ; 20. 9, 16; 
22.5; 29. II, 19 ; 33.6; 34. 18; 
39. 18; 43. 9; 57. 14; 58. 3; 
59. 17; 6O. 6, 22; 61-72 saep.\ 
74. I ; 84. 6 ; 85. I ; 94. 8 ; 1O3. 
5 ; 105. 4 ; Fr. 6 (c) 4. 

-npiaadai 6. I ; 8. 3, 6 ; 11. 7 ; 15. 
il; 25. 3; 29. 3; 33. 7,9, 16 ; 


25 1 

34. I, 2; 43. 8; 45. 17; 49. 9; 

60.18,19; 51.10; 64.15; 55. 

24; 66. 14; 57. 7; 58-3; 59. 

8 ; 60. 7 ; 80. 3. 
77/iir 56. 13. 
Tjyxxu'TjAio-Kf iy 63. 25* 
npofiarov Fr. 5 () 7. 
TTpoypanfjia. 9. 7 ; 37. 6. 
irpouvai 40. 5 ; 86. 3. 
Tr/joiorarai 41. 16; 43. 3 ; 78. 3. 
TTpoKT)pv(T(T(ii> 53. 4 ; 54. I ; 65. 1 6 ; 

67.8, 13; 59.9, 15. 
27. 8, 15. 
55. 15- 
npoo-ayyf \\fiv 56. 9. 
uyMNrairortreir 5O. 1 1 ; 52. i, 25 ; 54. 


TTpocrfLO-npao-o-civ 52. IO ; 93. 7- 
npo<rKaTa\<0pi(iv 16. 9. 
Trpo(TK<pa\aiov 102. 6. 
16. 17. 
39. IO. 
3. I ; IO. 9 ; 16. 12, 17; 

18. 14; 21. 16; 29. 7. 
irpo<ro/)fueii> 99. 4. 
T>pocro<pei\ii> 19. 1,4, 12. 
7rpooTa<r<reii> 41. 23. 

TTpOOTlfJLOV 21. 6. 

-npoTfpov 17. 15 ; 24. 9 ; 32. 6 ; 41. 

14; 42. 13; 43. 4; 48. 5, 14. 
TTporpvyav 26. II, 17. 
npovTrapxdv 26. I ; 49. IO. 
TT/XOTOS 26. 13; 34. 21. 
ircoAeip 2. 2 ; 14. 4 ; 20. 12; 33. 4 ; 

34. 10; 39. 20; 40. 9, 17; 45. 

3; 47. 15; 6O. 16; 61. 25; 55. 

1 ; 67. 3 ; 58. 6 ; 59. 2 ; 6O. 13 ; 

73. 2J 87. 14; 88. 8; 91. 2. 

47. I ; 68. 8 ; 6O. 1 6. 

<njfjiaiviv 89. 4. 
26. 5. 

40. 10, 15; 49. 18 ; 51. 

13; 53. 7, 14, 27; 65. 7,15; 67. 
17 ; 58. 2 ; 69. 2O ; 60. 5. 

39. 2, JI, 15, 2O ; 41. IO, 
15, 17, 21, 26; 42. 3; 43.13,17, 
19, 20, 23; 44. 6; 46. 16, 18 ; 
49. 16; 63. 5, 7, IO, 16 ; 66.4; 
67. 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 ; 58. 
1,3.4; 89- 7. II, 12, 16, 17, 19, 
21 ; 60. 3, 7, 9, 19, 24; 61-72 

dpav 41. 15; 43. 7,2O; 68.4; 
60. 9. 

39. 7 ; 43. 15 ; 55. 6 ; 57. 
19 ; 69. 22. 
a-novbr] 36. 19. 

o-TTopos 41. 3, 17 ; 42. 1 6 ; 43. 4. 
ararrjp 58. 7 ; 60. 15; 76. 4. 
50. 14. 
32. 3. 

49. 22 ; 60. IO ; 61. 25 ; 52. 
10, 25 ; 53. 3 ; 54. 8, jo ; 76. 7. 

54. 13 ; 97. 3. 
<TTpaTV<rdat. 24. 6. 
orpaTTjyos 37. 2. 

103. 2. 

20. 14: 26. 18; 28. IO, 
12; 47. 16; 48. 3. 
yypcu^Tj 20. 13 ; 21. 1 ; 27. 4, 6, 8 ; 
29. 8; 42. 13, 18; 47. 17; 48. 
17; Fr. i (/)2. 
v 43. 5- 

20. 16; 43. 14; 49. 7; 
56. IO. 

(rvufioXov 21. I ; 52. 1 6, 19, 24, 26, 
29 ; 53. 1,2 ; 89. 12 ; 91. 4 ; 99. 
2 ; Fr. i (c) 6 ; Fr. 2 (d) 4. 
0-u/A/3oAo</>uAa IO. 2 ; 12. 16 ; 13. 2. 
(TtyxTTapeu-ai 46. 14. 
(rvfJiiTpo<r(ivaL 27. 1 8. 
o-vnr/ar 24. 14; 32. 1, 4; 36. y ; 


<rvvavayKa(w 20. 3. 
<rvvaTTO<rrf\\(i.v 27. 13; 30. 12; 42. 




8. I ; 21. 9. 
(rvvtTii(r<f)pa.yieiv 42. 19; 84. 2. 
avvTagis 43. 12 ; 47. I ; 48. 13. 
(n>vTa<T<reiv 19. 1 1 ; 21. 5 ; 32. i o ; 
41. I ; 47. 5, 13, 15; 55. 10 ; 76. 

avireAay 30. 8, TO ; 33. 2O ; 37. 7 ; 

41. I ; 106. 2. 

(TUimjKew 50. 17. 

ovvTi[j.av 42. 9. 

<rvvTifJLr]<ns 24. 1 1 . 

a(ppayiCfiv 18. 3, 4 ; 25. 1O ; 26. 8 ; 

27. 4, 12; 28. 7; 29. 9 ; 42. 15, 

18; 9O. i. 

(rffrpayis 26. 9 ; 104. 6. 
0-$pay 107x0. 104. 3. 

(T^OIVIOV 100. 5- 

50. 9 ; 82. I ; 85. 6. 

ToXavrov 95. II ; 105. I. See also 

Index of Symbols. 
rao-crav 21. 16 ; 41. 22. rcrayfj-fvos 

18. 18; 19. 6, 7, 15; 32. ii ; 37. 

12; 41. 13, 24; 46.5; 61.9,23; 

89. 9. 

T\CiV 96. I. 

reAos 15. 10, 15 ; 52. 1 8, 21, 23 ; 57. 
6, 12, 15; 58.45 59. 7, 13, 17 ; 
60. 9, 22 ; 61-72 saep. ; 85. 8 ; 

95. no; 98. 6; 1O4. 5; 107. I. 

28. 9 ; 29. 8. 

21. 12, 14. 
/ 1 9. 5- 
18. 13. 

29. 6, 16 ; 42. II, 17 ; 56. 2, 

18. 14; 28. 16; 31. 4, 15; 32. 
8, 12, 14, 15, 18; 33. 6; 34. 8; 
39. 16 ; 42. 2 ; 43. 16; 48. 8; 
49. 3; 51. 19; 53. 9, 10, 13, 23, 
24; 54. n; 55. i, 2; 94. 12; 

96. 3 ; 102. 6 ; 103. I ; Fr. I (*) 
3 ; Fr. 2 ( 2. 

56. 12. 

29. 12, 19; 42. 14; 43. 22; 

103. 6. 
rowans 37. 3 ; 41. 7, 17 ; 42. 5, 6, 

20 ; 87. 2. 
roirapxia 87. 4- 
TOJTOS 25. 9 ; 29. 5. 
rocrouros 17. 7- 
rpcnrefa 32. 12 ; 34. 17 ; 48. 1 1 ; 56. 

16; 73. I, 2, 4; 74. I, 3; 75. 1, 

2, 4 ; 76. 2, 3, 6 ; 105. 9. 

Tpa.TTflT1]S 75. 5- 

rptfyeiv Fr. 5 () i, 2. 
Tpia.K.ovTa\oiviKOs 39. 2, 4. 
94. 3, 6. 

22. I ; 34. 21. 

Fr. 6 (#) 10, (//) 6. 

19. 14. 
rptros 46. 1 6. 

rpoTros 36. 16 ; 37. 10 ; 49. 17. 
rpvyav 24. 14, 15 ; 32. 7. 
rv/3 1 Fr. 4 (^) 4. 

94. 10 ; 102. 5. 

1. 2 ; 24. 2. 

5. 2 ; 25. 9 ; 50. 23 ; 54. 
13; 55. 19; 57. 6, II ; 58. 8; 
59. 6, 13; 60. 16; 61-72 saep. ; 
80. 4; 86. II ; 106. 9. 
22. 2. 

8. 4; 11. 16; 12. 12, 15; 
13. 2; 16. 12; 55. 18. 
wrroypa(f)tiv 19. 2 ; 94. I. 

53. 1 8. 
43. 15. 

28. 1 6 ; 77. 2. 
iy 34. 7 ; 53. 23. 
15. 12; 28. 1 8 ; 33. 14; 

uorepaios 20. IO ; 26. 16 ; 56. 1 1 ; 
Fr. I (d) 2. 

VO'Tff.OV 17. IO. 

5. I ; 21. 8 ; 33. 15. 



</>ai>ai 20. S ; 65. 19 ; 56. 7. 

</>o/ioAoyia 33. 13, 2O. 

(jbo/mov 7. 5; 43. 14; 46. 14; 49. 

21 ; 50. 10 ; 53. 24 ; 54. 23 ; 55. 


<t>pa&iv 29. 5. 
<j!>uAaKT/ 10. i ; 13. 13. 
<jE>uri>ii> 24. 7. 

37. 5. 

40. 1O; 43. 16; 68. 7 ; 60. 
14; 76. 3; 77. I, 3, 8; Fr. 6 

W 3- 

yapa.(T(T(.iv 44. I. 

Xdpoypafaiv 27. 5, 1 3 ; 78. 2. 
Xipoypa<3f)ia 36. IO; 37. 13, 2O. 
Xetpcu/xa 94. 4. 
Xirwi; 98. 4. 
Xoia X Fr. 2 (/) 4, 5. 
Xoprjyfiv 4L 25 ; 45. 19 ; 46. 4 ; 68. 
5 ; 60. 1 2 ; 61-72 sacp. 

52. 13, 23; 63. 27 ; 96. 1. 
34. .5 ; 86. II. 
77. I. 
15. 4. 
103. 4. 

8 6 ; 16. 5, 18 ; 17. 1 ; 18. 9, 
15; 19. 3; 21. 10, 15, 16; 22.3; 
33. 5 ; 46. 12; 47. 5 ; 57. 7 ; 69. 
8; Fr. 4(^)2. 

X<pa 36. 3 ; 40. 9, 1 8 ; 43. 1 1 ; 47. 

17 ; 50. 21 ; 62. 8 ; 54. 14 ; 57. 

3 ; 69. 3 ; 73. 3 ; 91. 2 ; 105. 3. 
X<O/H; 53. 21 ; 55. I ; 61. I. 

<oi>io-0ai 15. 2 ; 40. 17 ; 49. 18. 
(0v*i 2. I ; 3. I ; 8. 3,5,6; 9. 1,8,9, 

12, 14; 10. 3,4,8, 13, 17; 11. 7; 

13. i, 5; 15. ii ; 16. 3, 12; 17-3, 
10, 14 ; 18. i, 10: 19. 9 bis ; 20. 
I ; 22. 2 ; 26. I, 5, 16 ; 26. 2, IO ; 
27. i ; 28. 3, 16; 29. 3, 13, 17, 
20 ; 3O. 4, 14 ; 31. 16 ; 32. 5 ; 33. 
3, 7, 8, 10, 17; 34. i, 2, 10, n, 
13, 16; 35. I ; 4O. 7; 41.4, 9, 
22 ; 42. 2, 8 bis, 14 ; 43. 8 ; 44. 
12; 45. 6, ii, 15, 17; 46. 3, 4, 
8; 47. 3, 9, 13; 48. 2, 11 ; 49. 
9, II, 14, 19, 21 ; 50. 22 ; 51. II, 
13, 19; 52. 4; 53.4,6, 13, 23; 
64. 15,20,21 ;, 13, 17,24; 
56. 10, 14 ; 57. 23 ; 58. 7 ; 60. i, 
14; 61-72 saep. ; 84. i, 2, 6, 9 ; 
85. 8 ; 86. 4 ; 107. 2 ; Fr. I (d) 5; 
Fr. 2 (/) i ; Fr. 4 (i) 8. 

copa 41. 14 ; 42. 3. 

coo-aura)? 36. 1 1 ; 37. 16 ; 52. 28. 

wore 60. 21 ; 61-72 saep. 


















AU6 2 5 1983